Becoming African: Debating Post-Apartheid White South African Identities

Becoming African: Debating Post-Apartheid White South African Identity A later version of this paper appeared in the Journal of Asian and African Studies, vol. 9 issue 1. Please quote from the published version rather than from this earlier draft. The published version is available here: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a93372245 1. Abstract The post-apartheid era necessitates the emergence of new white identities and one way in which some white South Africans are seeking to redefine themselves is through the claiming of an African identity. However, claims by white South Africans that they too are Africans have not met with uniform approval from other South Africans. This article uses an online student forum to explore emerging white identities and black responses to them. After summarising the arguments made by contributors to the debate, I use this debate as a starting point to explore the possibilities and limitations that the embracing of an African identity has for the development of what Frankenberg (1993, p.7) calls ‘anti-racist forms of whiteness’ in South Africa. Introduction One of the many disturbing features of apartheid was the way in which white South Africans insisted that they belonged on the southern tip of the African continent, but at the same insisted that they were different from and superior to other inhabitants of the same land.i As Mafeje put it, they are ‘those who are part, but do not wish to belong’ (1997, p.9). Under apartheid, white South Africans were at pains to express both their right to be in South Africa and their distinctiveness from the ‘natives’ of the 1 land. As apartheid wound down, some commentators pointed out that the end of apartheid meant that white South Africans would have to articulate a new identity. Njabulo Ndebele talks about the need for white South Africans to develop a ‘new sense of cultural rootedness’ (2000, p.52) commenting that: ... the quest for a new white humanity will begin to emerge from a voluntary engagement by those caught in the culture of whiteness of their own making, with the ethical and moral implications of being situated at the interface between inherited, problematic privilege, on the one hand and, on the other, the blinding sterility at the centre of the ‘heart of whiteness’ (Ndebele 2000, pp. 46-47). In a sense, what Ndebele is saying is that if white South Africans want to stay in South Africa, they have to find a way of becoming African. It seems, then, on first consideration, that the embracing of an African identity by many white South Africans is a promising new phenomenon. During the post-apartheid era, a fairly diverse range of white South Africans have described themselves as being Africans (see for example Kemp Spies, 2007; Morris, 2006; Max du Preez 2005; Van Zyl Slabbert, 1999). However, as will become apparent below this white embracing of an African identity has not uniformly been met with approval by blackii South Africans. I teach large classes of young South African students and have been interested to note how many white students choose to define themselves as African today. I have been interested, also, to observe the very mixed reactions black students have to white students’ claims to be African. iii In this article, I discuss an online debate on Afrocentricity between students in an undergraduate political studies class. I focus particularly on a key 2 preoccupation of the participants in this debate: the question of whether or not white South Africans can legitimately call themselves African. I then set out a few reflections on the issues raised in this debate, looking particularly at the possibilities and limitations that the embracing of an African identity has for white South Africans’ quest to find a sense of rootedness in the post-apartheid era. It seems obvious that for any postapartheid white identity to find broad acceptance among black South Africans, it would have to be an identity that eschewed the racism that informed apartheid-era white identities. As such, it is interesting to examine international literature on the possibilities of developing ‘antiracist forms of whiteness’ (Frankenberg, 1993, p.7). After summarising the online student debate, I briefly explore this literature, using its insights to reflect on the issues raised by the debate. Background to the Debate As part of a first year introductory comparative politics course, I spend a little time debating the notion of Afrocentricity. Because the first year class is very large and so only a minority of students contribute to class debates, I regularly set up online forums where students can continue debates started in class. In 2008 and 2009 I set up online debates on the topic of Afrocentricity and in both years this particular debate attracted a large number of posts.iv While I set up and was able to observe the online debate, I chose not to participate in it in order to allow the debate to have a more student-led ‘feel’ than class debates do. Also, 3 because I am white while more than half the class was black, I suspect that my absence, or rather apparent absence, from the online debate allowed black students to feel more comfortable expressing views they suspect white people (like me, their lecturer) may not like. The online debate I discuss below was on the topic of Afrocentricity and students were free to discuss any issue they felt related to the topic; however, the question of who is – and who is not – an African (and thus who can contribute to Afrocentric writing) dominated the debate. It seems in particular that the question of whether or not white people can legitimately be called African was a pressing one for both black and white contributors to the debate. In this article I use students’ contributions to this online debate to look at the way in which some white South Africans are embracing an African identity and to explore ways in which black South Africans are responding to these white South Africans’ claims to be African. While these students’ views cannot be considered to be representative of the views of South Africans in general or even of young South Africans, they do reveal ways in which at least some white South Africans are choosing to define themselves today and some of the ways in which some black South Africans are responding to these emerging new white identities. Furthermore, the views expressed are interesting in that they are an example of how black and white South Africans are negotiating postapartheid identities. Black contributors to the debate outnumbered white contributors by more than two to one and so white contributors were put in a position where they had to negotiate with and respond to black 4 contributors’ views. In the past, white identities were formed to a large extent without consultation or conversation with black South Africans, so it is interesting to note the way in which these white students are constructing identities in negotiation with black fellow students and in consideration of their views.v The next section of the article provides a summary of the views expressed in the online debate, focusing particularly on the question of whether or not white people can legitimately describe themselves as African. I have edited the posts slightly as many students wrote in a kind of shorthand common on such forums, but I have kept editing to a minimum to ensure that the meaning and the tone of the contributors is not distorted. For the sake of anonymity, no names are used. I should also note that while most of the contributors are South African and all were resident in South Africa while participating in the debate, some of the posts were made by non-South African students, mostly by students from other African countries. I chose to include these posts, but where this is the case I have indicated the nationality of the student in a footnote. I should also note that I want to use this online discussion as a starting point for a broader discussion about white identity in postapartheid South Africa. I do not perform a discursive analysis of individual forum posts, nor do I interrogate the viewpoints of any particular student. I would like to acknowledge at the outset that some of the white students’ posts (not all of which are quoted from below) revealed ethnocentric, insensitive and/or paternalistic attitudes towards black people. Furthermore, prejudices, misunderstandings and logical fallacies were 5 evident in the posts of some students, both black and white. However, I avoid using this article to criticise and reveal as problematic the specific comments made by specific students, partly out of a concern that this is not an appropriate way to use comments made by young students who were not aware that their comments were likely to attract this kind of scrutiny and who were using this forum to work out and experiment with new ideas. Rather, I begin by simply summarising – rather than analysing – the views expressed in the online debates and then use this conversation as a whole as a starting point for a more general discussion. White Assertions of Africanness Several white contributors to the online forum chose to label themselves African giving quite diverse reasons for their choice. Many of these students were responding to posts by black students in which these students had indicated that they do not believe white people can be Africans and thus the tone of many white contributions was fairly defensive. Some white students insisted that excluding white people from the category ‘African’ is racist and contrary to the non-racialism that was valued by at least some anti-apartheid movements. Thus one student commented: ...[T]o say because I am white I can’t be African is blatant racism ... To argue such things resolves nothing and can only cause more unwanted hatred through something that happened in the past that we can all honestly say was wrong. As a human like everyone else we shouldn’t argue about what we consider not to be African, but rather be proud of everything and everyone that has pride in being African. 6 Similarly, another commented: ... [F]orget about colour and your issues and remember that we are all together. I use an African epithet that was used during the struggle in this country against Apartheid: ‘ubuntu’ – ‘I am because we are’. This was the embodiment of what the struggle meant to leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo, Steve Biko. It does not speak of colour, yet you do. Other white students defended the idea that white people can be African by arguing that by virtue of being born and raised in Africa or by virtue of having a long ancestry in Africa, white people can be considered African: [T]he general definition of an African cannot exclude the minorities living on the continent! I am speaking from the perspective of a 6th generation white South African .... I pose the question: how can I even consider myself European?vi One student implied that her parents’ opposition to apartheid justified her claim to be African, saying: I am white and I am proud to say that I AM AN AFRICAN!! My parents fought their own part in the struggle and I was born here and I think that gives me the right to say that this is my home and therefore I AM AFRICAN!! An Afrikaans student generated much debate by suggesting that Afrikaners (but not other white South Africans) qualify as African because their culture and language developed in and is specific to Africa. He insisted that Africa is ‘the scene of [the Afrikaners’] cultural development’ and their ‘Motherland’ and thus that Afrikaners, but not other whites, are Africans. Another way in which some white contributors defended their claim to be African was through expressing commitment to Africa and arguing 7 that their choice to remain in Africa, rather than to immigrate to the West, is a sign of their love for the continent and gives them legitimate claim to be called African. For example, one student said: I am not leaving this country. I’m going to live and stay and try to help Africa. I’d rather work to fix Africa’s problems than live anywhere else because Africa is my home. As is evident from the above, those white students who claimed an African identity named quite different reasons for their claim. While some suggested that all white South Africans can be called African, others suggested that only some (such as Afrikaners or those who show commitment to the continent) qualify. What became clear as the debate progressed was that white students who self-identified as African felt very threatened and upset by the resistance some black students showed to their desire to be African. In response to this resistance, some white students asserted their claim to Africanness in very vehement terms: Yes, there have been good reasons for and against whites being called ‘African’, but truthfully, none of them have changed my point of view in the slightest. Plus, you are who you KNOW you are, not what other people say or think. I am white and will call myself an ‘African’ and I really don’t care what anyone else has to say!vii I am a white-skinned African ... and I will not be forced to say otherwise or made to keep silent. It should be noted that a minority of the white students in the class participated in the debate and that while most of those who did participate declared themselves in favour of the notion that whites can be African, not all white participants did. One, for example, said that she did not feel African as her ‘world-view is very European’, although she 8 stressed that this may not be true of all white people. Another pointed out that whites’ ‘heritage lies beyond the seas’. Black Students’ Perspectives on White Africanness Black students had varied positions on white students’ claims to be African. Some of those who supported the view that some or all white South Africans can legitimately call themselves Africans made reference to the non-racialism of many black leaders. For example, one student felt that excluding white people from the category African entailed ‘dishonouring the dream of Martin L. King, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and others’. Another black student felt that many white people are committed to Africa and thus deserving of being called African: Being African should not be about the colour of your skin. Yes, it’s true that originally white people are not from Africa, but over many generations they grew into loving this place as much as we black people do. I believe that being African is a feeling of pre-destination and a sense of belonging that one has towards this continent. There were also black participants who felt that an unwillingness to include white people in the category African involves an unhealthy preoccupation with the apartheid past: Africa is for blacks? Which century do you live in because Africa belongs to those who stay in it not because of the colour of your skin. We have African Renaissance for a reason, and it’s high time that we acknowledge that the white people in this century have absolutely nothing to do with the past because you clearly resent them based on the apartheid years and the colonial centuries. Well, I advise you to stop living in the past and catch a wake up call. Let’s just be united!!!! 9 It is not fair to judge a person on their skin colour because that was what apartheid was about! My parents remind me every day about the effect apartheid had on their lives and I know that they will never forgive white people, but I don’t want that kind of hatred to consume my life!! A further argument put forward by those black students who welcomed white students’ claims to be African was the argument that identities like ‘African’ or ‘black’ are fluid and constantly changing, making it unreasonable to try to fix the definition of such terms: Our society is an evolving one: Europeans, Africans, Asians and Americans are no longer defined by the colour of their skin or according to cultural practices. This is due to the fusion of cultures around the world and globalisation .... Being an African means being born in Africa. You cannot limit being an African [through] cultural definition because in our contemporary society there is no absolute African culture ... is there? While many black contributors to the forum accepted and even embraced white students’ claims to be African, a large number of black participants rejected the idea that white people can legitimately call themselves Africans. Again, the reasons given for this view varied. It was clear that some students felt very strongly about this issue and were adamant that no white person may ever qualify as an African. Consider the comments below and note in particular the way in which these students insist that it is a fact that white people are not African: … you may indeed FEEL African but the fact remains that you are not and will never be. [Jarrett, note not South African] If you are white, you have European blood - simple, even if you were born and raised in Africa. These are not ‘racist views’, it’s a fact. 10 But the fact remains that you [white students] aren't African ... please read [another student’s] post. I quote: “It's simple - if you are white, you're not African.” In support of such arguments, some students referred to the way in which South African employment equity legislation requires one to choose between being ‘African’ or ‘white’ when filling in various forms, thus suggesting that the two are mutually exclusive: … just a typical example: when you fill in a South African form or on South African statistics, where do you tick (where do you fall under) on the blocks – African (referring to blacks), white (referring to Europeans), Indians and coloureds? So where do you tick, African or white? You don’t have to answer that, I’ve got the answer for it, just [making] you aware of who you are. Others suggested that being African has to do with certain cultural practices or with the use of African languages and thus that white people (or at least those who do not engage in these practices or speak these languages) are not African. Consider the following comments: Any form of anything that is linked or identified as African comes from the black African cultures of this land. When Europeans come on tour and they want to have a taste of what it means to be an African they don’t go to Sandton, Johannesburg or the malls of Cape Town they go to the BLACK woman who do bead work in the Eastern Cape or they go to [KwaZulu-Natal] and see the traditional BLACK Zulu dancers in the Drakensburg or Zululand .... I will echo that being African cannot and will not be based by the fact that one was born here alone. African heritage fused with African culture defines a true African! … you [white students] are not [African] and will never be. As crude as that may sound, you do not know what ‘isphandla’ is or what it resembles.viii 11 Some of those who put forward such views even suggested that ‘Westernised’ black people ought to be excluded from the category ‘African’. One student asked: Can a black South African male who’s lived in a suburb all his life, cannot speak an African language and has hardly any exposure to what may be deemed African be trusted to give a truly Afrocentric view of Africa? Another student replied to this question as follows: ‘The answer is no, no and no! ... you have made an example of a deeply sad person’. The quotes above seem to suggest that these black contributors believe there to be essential and significant innate differences between black and white people and that this means that black and white people cannot be considered part of the same category – ‘African’. However, when reading these students’ forum posts as a whole (and many of the students quoted above posted several times), it becomes clear that their and other black students’ rejection of white students’ claims is typically more complex than simply being a rejection based on some kind of perceived ‘fact’ of racial difference. Many of the students who opposed the notion of white Africanness also wrote about their anger about past and present racism and said that they felt that white claims to be African in the post-apartheid era were offensive and showed insensitivity to the past experiences of black people. While it is likely that some black participants do believe in some kind of racial essentialism, my impression was that the rejection of white students’ claims to be African was not typically or simply an expression of this kind of belief. Rather, many black students felt that white students’ claims to Africanness were too 12 convenient and self-serving and demonstrated a desire to avoid facing up to the apartheid past; whites who claimed to be Africans seemed to be saying something like ‘We’re all Africans now, let’s leave the past behind us’. Many black students rejected this approach and insisted that white people need to acknowledge past and present white racism and privilege. This view is evidenced by the way in which many black students stressed that white people did not want to be African when being African was out of favour with the ruling authorities. The claim to be African now seemed to be too convenient. Consider these comments: White people are maliciously using the concept of being African. Now that being African has been deemed as socially acceptable everyone wants to be one!!!! When Africans suffered we suffered alone, but now that we're basking in the glory of our achievements everyone wants to be African …. Before I put my point across I'd like to express that I am all for the rainbow nation! But one thing I am seriously against is the ‘trend’ that seems so popular these days, which is claiming to be ‘African’ and ‘being a black person trapped in a white person’s body’ and all sorts of other ridiculous notions! The way I see it is that everyone wants to be black and African all of a sudden because it suits them! I’m sorry, but no one wanted to be black with us real black people during the oppressive apartheid regime and I haven’t heard of any white people who were whining about wanting to be classified as African because they were born here during the centuries of slavery and colonial rule. During Apartheid it suited white people just fine to be classified as European even though they had never set foot [in Europe] because they had a million and one perks, but now black people have claimed the power that rightfully belongs to them and white people want to be black? Quite frankly as a black African I feel used. People only want to be us when we have something to offer!!! So basically guys (white people), I have so much love for you but you're white, deal with it, and let’s all live in harmony, black and white like the keys of a piano and let’s make beautiful music … it was easy for them [white people] to put a sign that says ‘WHITES ONLY’ or ‘NON-WHITES ARE NOT ALLOWED’ in toilets during the apartheid era, but suddenly they claim to be so-called ‘AFRICANS’. No, it does not work like that. 13 Black students felt that white claims to be African in post-apartheid South Africa are just too convenient given the lack of extensive white resistance to apartheid during the years in which black people suffered for being African. Furthermore, some black students felt that continued white racism makes them suspicious of and unwilling to accept white claims to Africanness: The war is definitely not over .... it’s a shame to those who are so naive and blindfolded. Just because some white people give you that fake smile don’t mean shit to me. Go to the farms and rural areas, you'll see what I’m talking about. The black man is still forced to call that fat bastard with hanging stomach ‘baas’, can you believe it .... they still feed our mothers urineix ... NONE THE LESS THERE ARE GENUINE PEOPLE OUT THERE. My friend this is a debate that is for real and we shouldn't just take it for granted because we have suffered enough as Africans at the hands of the whites and we still suffering from that. You may say that we are universally equal but are we really that equal? No, my friend, we are not. If the police come and you are with a white person, who is the first suspect, isn't it the black person, the African? NO, NO, NO, let’s be proud of being the true Africans, owners of the land of our forefathers even though they [whites] still own the majority of our land. Other students focused on what being African means in the context of debates around Afrocentricity, arguing that for the purposes of deciding who can and cannot present an Afrocentric view of the world, white people are excluded. Some argued that the term African, at least when thinking about Afrocentricity, refers to those who have particular shared experiences and whose experiences have been under-represented in academia and the media. Thus, to be an African, in at least some senses of the word, refers to a person who has been, and often continues to be, oppressed and marginalised by white people. Consider the following comments: 14 … only a black man/woman living in Africa can understand the centuries of pain that comes part and parcel of being able to call oneself BLACK.x … the slavery of our forefathers, their pain, their torture, whether we'd like to admit it or not, remains a substantial part of who we are. Their blood, their sweat, their tears made us the Africans we are. Not all students who held this kind of view felt that this means that white people can never call themselves African, but they stressed that the term African, especially when used in discussions about Afrocentricity, suggests a particular shared history and that those who do not share this history may not be able to fully understand what it means to be black and African: Partially being an African to me is a consciousness of the pain in your people’s past (do you identify with those wronged?), the celebration of today’s liberties and an awareness of all the people who still suffer in this beautiful continent because of its perverse past. It is not a skin thing because I've seen black people who disregard their ‘Africanness’ while conforming to western conventions .... I don’t think you can stand from the side and understand why a black man is still furious and angry. I told another earlier that the wound has not yet healed and if it does the scar shall still exist as well. I’m not saying you can’t be white and African for who am I to deprive someone of what they consider as their ‘identity’, but what I’m saying is I understand where the black people come from and you can’t expect to wake up one day having forgotten all the things that these people have gone through. You can’t take away an experience. They have their reasons why they say what they say and we can’t just turn a new leaf and sing happy, happy rainbow nation.xi This perspective was supported by some white students who agreed that, at least in terms of thinking about what it means to present an Afrocentric view of the world, white South Africans ought to be excluded from the category African. One student, for example, said that while the ‘general’ definition of the term ‘African’ ought to include white people: 15 In terms of an Afrocentric view point I believe the term African can only apply to those [who] have been marginalised by Eurocentric scholars. It just so happens that those marginalised throughout history are in fact majority ethnic blacks and hence white Africans are excluded from the definition of an African in Afrocentricity. In a similar vein, another white student commented as follows Afrocentricity is a platform for blacks, Indians, Coloureds....etc who were previously discriminated against to find an identity again - an identity that was stripped away from them for years. Yes, we should try to move forward and try to change the world for the better by realising what the future could hold for us, but before we can do that, the previously discriminated ... need to find an identity. Thus some students, both black and white, felt that the past oppression of black people means that, for some time at least, there is a particular position that can only be assumed by black people and a particular view of the world that can only be articulated by those with black skin and thus that the term ‘African’ refers principally or exclusively to black people. Related Debates on Africanness While I am not sure how typical the views expressed above are or how many South Africans are engaged in such debates, there are good reasons to suspect that in other classrooms, workplaces, homes and public spaces, other South Africans are also reflecting on what it means to be African and, more specifically, on whether white South Africans qualify. One indication that this concern is not a peculiar preoccupation of my class of students, is that the question crops up, time and again, in South African newspapers. One example is the debate generated by Malegapuru Makgoba, the vice-chancellor of the University of KwaZulu-Natal, when he 16 argued that white South Africans need to learn to ‘accept and imitate the things that matter dearly to Africans’. According to Makgoba, whites should learn to speak, write and spell in an African language ... dance and sing like Ladysmith Black Mambazo ... learn kwaito, dance like Lebo, dress like Madiba, enjoy eating ‘smiley and walkies’ and attend lekgotla and socialise at our taverns.xii Makgoba suggests that only this kind of ‘Africanisation’ can guarantee white South Africans successful ‘African rehabilitation’ and allow white South Africans to be accepted into the now African-led society. The article attracted a number of critical responses from white South Africans, several of whom asserted their right to call themselves African despite their inability (or unwillingness) to speak, dance, dress or eat according to Makgoba’s requirements. Thus, Mike Morris insists that ‘[t]here’s no onesize-fits-all definition of what constitutes an African’ and argues that ‘all who live, are born and have their heritages here, are all first-class citizens – all belong as Africans’ (Morris, 2005; see also Du Preez, 2005; Morrell, 2005).xiii Former South African president, Thabo Mbeki, and current president, Jacob Zuma, have also contributed to this debate. Mbeki’s famous I am an African speech suggests that white people can indeed be considered African,xiv while shortly before assuming the presidency, Zuma created controversy when he described Afrikaners as being ‘the only white tribe in a black continent or out of Europe which is truly African (Mbeki, 1996; McAuliffe, 2009). 17 Further evidence that this question of white Africanness is a pressing one, at least for many white South Africans, is provided by Melissa Steyn’s study of post-apartheid white South African narratives (Steyn, 2001). Steyn discusses how some white South Africans are seeking to move past ‘old discourses of whiteness’ by ‘creating and defining new subjectivities by drawing on other discursive and cultural repertoires to supplement or replace previous white identity’ (2001, p.115). Some of the subjects discussed in relation to this narrative expressed a desire to distance themselves from what they consider white culture and to seek to become more African. One, for example, speaks of her desire to be an African ‘in the true sense of the word’ (2001, p.124). These white South Africans have negative feelings towards the values and practices they associate with whiteness, but also express a sense that Africanness is something a white person has to earn (see Steyn, 2001, pp.120-127). Two of South Africa’s most prominent writers, J.M. Coetzee and Antjie Krog, have also reflected on this question of white Africanness. Two decades ago, Coetzee described white South Africans as ‘no longer European, not yet African’ (1988, p. 11) and in his most recent book white South Africans’ presence in South Africa is described by one character as ‘legal but illegitimate’ (2009, p.209). The character explains ‘Our [white people’s] presence was grounded in a crime, namely colonial conquest, perpetuated by apartheid. Whatever the opposite is of native or rooted, that was what we felt ourselves to be’ (2009, pp. 209-210). Antjie Krog’s writings return time and again to the issue of white identity and belonging in post-apartheid South Africa. In A Change of 18 Tongue a black character tells a white character ‘The moment you learn to live the black life of risk, you will become one of us’ (2003, p. 274) to which another black character replies: Bullshit ... She can never become black. She will always be a ... what did they call Max du Preez the other day? – a kangaroo! Her people have been living here for generations, surviving, but when we see her, we know she is a kangaroo from elsewhere. Still, we like her and we live with her. And she, for some reason, likes us and prefers to live with us (2003, p. 274). Indeed, the question of white identity and Africanness is a key theme in much post-apartheid white South African literature and autobiography.xv Clearly, the question of how white South Africans fit into the postapartheid project of making South Africa an African country is one that invites much reflection and debate. Anti-Racist Forms of Whiteness To better understand the kinds of issues being raised in this online student debate and in the media articles and books discussed above, it is useful to explore some of the international literature on white identities, particularly literature that asks whether or not white people can play a positive role in struggles against white racism and what role this might be. This literature is useful because it seems that a key challenge – arguably the key challenge – to developing an adequate post-apartheid white identity is the challenge of finding ways in which white South Africans can think of themselves in a way that is not demeaning to black South Africans. Unless white South Africans can develop what Frankenberg calls 19 ‘anti-racist forms of whiteness’ (1993, p.7), there are good reasons for black South Africans likely to dispute any claim by whites to be African and even to question the continued white presence in South Africa. There is a fairly large body of literature which looks at white identities with the aim of exploring whether or not white people can play a role in anti-racist struggles. This literature recognises that confronting racism requires the critical study not only of those who are disadvantaged by racism, but also of those who are advantaged by it. As Toni Morrison puts it, it is necessary to ‘avert the critical gaze from the racial object to the racial subject; from the described and imagined to the describers and imaginers; from the serving to the served’ (1992, p. 90). Perhaps the earliest example of this kind of study is found in essays on white people by W.E.B. Du Bois, in particular the seminal The Souls of White Folk (1920). While much of this literature emerged in the USA, South Africa’s Steve Biko also paid considerable attention to white people in his discussions of black consciousness. Defending this preoccupation with whiteness, he stresses that ‘[he] do[es] not wish to concern [himself] unnecessarily with the white people of South Africa, but to get to the right answers, we must ask the right questions; we have to find out what went wrong ....’ (2004[1973], p.96). We cannot understand and oppose racism effectively if we only study the way in which racism disadvantages some people, while neglecting to reflect on the ways in which racism also works to advantage others. White identities and white privilege thus need to be come under closer scrutiny. 20 There has, over the last two decades or so, been an explosion of literature on white identities, particularly in the United States of America (USA), some of this literature builds on the tradition of Du Bois and other African Americans, while other literature takes up quite different themes.xvi One of the most useful discussions to come out of this body of writing has been its critique of the ‘colour-blind’xvii approach adopted by many white liberals and leftists when thinking about race. It has become socially unacceptable to openly espouse racist beliefs and so it is often suggested that the ‘good’ white person is one who treats everyone equally and does not notice anyone’s race (Sullivan, 2006, p.5). This kind of approach allows white people to distance themselves from racism, by presenting racism as something that other (bad) white people do. Thus, the white liberal is able to say ‘”Race has nothing to do with me – I’m not racist”’ (Frankenberg, 1993, p.7). When white people oppose racism, this then appears to be ‘an act of compassion for an “other”, an optional, extra project’. It is these ‘compassionate’ white people who Biko describes as being ‘that bunch of do-gooders ... who argue that they are not responsible for white racism’ (Biko, 2004[1970], p.21) but who seek, apparently out of a sense of duty or goodwill, to ‘help’ black people oppose racism. Rather than being ‘colour-blind’ and trying to pretend race does not exist, Frankenberg argues that white people need to reflect critically on the way in which racism is a ‘system that shapes our daily experiences and sense of self’ (Frankenberg, 1993:7). As Bailey (1998, p.33, 36) puts it ‘The existence of sexism and racism as systems requires everyone’s daily collaboration .... What holds racism in place, 21 metaphorically speaking, is not only that African Americans have sat in the back of the bus for so long, but also that whites have avoided the task of critically examining and giving up their seats at the front’. A ‘colour-blind’ approach is thus inadequate as it obscures white privilege and assists in ‘the production of a white self innocent of racism’ (Frankenberg, 1993, p.188). In contrast to ‘colour-blind’ approaches to race, anti-racism ‘is not the absence of racism, it is a community-based, multiracial commitment to a principle of justice, a site of struggle, and a set of activities’ (Aanerud, 2007, p.34). Frankenberg describes ‘colourblind’ approaches to race as being ‘power-evasive’ in that they avoid acknowledging that power relations between black and white people typically favour white people. Rather than being ‘colour-blind’ then, Frankenberg argues that white people need to be ‘race-cognizant’. Being race-cognizant entails recognising that race plays an important role in shaping the experiences of both black and white people and requires critical interrogation of white complicity and complacence in the creation of this racist world. In addition, race cognizance recognises an important contradiction presented by racism: On the one hand, it acknowledges the existence of racial inequality and white privilege and, on the other, does not lean on ontological or essential difference in order to justify inequality or explain it away (Frankenberg, 1993, p.160) Frankenberg argues that race-cognizance is necessary in order to develop anti-racist forms of whiteness. Thus, in order for white people to be antiracist, they need to recognise the existence and pervasiveness of racism, racial oppression and white privilege and be aware of their own (often 22 unwitting) complicity in the creation and perpetuation of racial injustices. Through this recognition and awareness, white people can play a role in making racial injustices visible and can ‘use their critique of the racial order and their own positions within it as the basis for participation in changing ... the material relations of racism’ (Frankenberg, 1993, p.241). To return to Bailey’s metaphor of the bus in which white people are seated at the front, it is not enough for white people to say ‘It’s not my fault black people are at the back, I didn’t make the rules that put them there’. Rather, race-cognizant whites have to ‘find ways to be disloyal to systems that assign these seats’ (Bailey, 1998:37). And, as Bailey stresses, this requires more than just ‘occasionally interrupting racist jokes’ (1998:37). To return to Biko, white people who would like to develop anti-racist identities, ought not to focus on correcting the ‘eye sore’ of black oppression presenting themselves as key players in the dismantling of racist systems; rather they need to recognise that ‘There is nothing the matter with blacks. The problem is with WHITE RACISM ... White liberals must leave blacks to take care of their own business while they concern themselves with the real evil in our society – white racism’ (2004[1970]:24-25). Thus, anti-racism on the part of white people requires continual critical interrogation of whiteness and a search for ways to be ‘disloyal’ to the systems which oppress black people while advantaging even those white people who do not view themselves as architects of such systems. Returning to the ‘White Africans’ 23 Keeping in mind some of the above comments on ways in which white people can best develop ‘anti-racist forms of whiteness’, let us return to the students’ comments on the possibility of white people being African. If we accept that post-apartheid South Africa requires the development of anti-racist white identities, how should we look upon some white people’s desire to be considered African? It seems clear that the white embracing of an African identity does not receive universal black approval. Does this invalidate the development of this kind of identity as a possible way in which white South Africans can develop appropriate anti-racist identities? Clearly, the resistance on the part of many black people to the development of such identities must make us doubt the validity of this shift in white identity. Even if, following the example of some of the white students quoted earlier, we dismiss as racist those black people who do not accept that white people are Africans, there is something awkward and uncomfortable about holding an identity others deny to you. Antjie Krog puts it very well: I can say a thousand times that I am an African. And when you dispute it, I can say, fuck you, this is also my continent and country, whether you say so or not. But who would want to live the life of an unaccepted African? (Krog, REF pg) Then, of course, there is the further obvious challenge to the idea that white Africanness can be considered an anti-racist form of whiteness and that is that clearly an anti-racist form of whiteness ought to be one that is formed in negotiation with and consideration of black people. If a white 24 person is not to be racist, he or she must take black people’s views seriously and consider them carefully. How then is the white person to respond to the claim by many black people that a white person cannot be African? Some of the white students involved in the debate described above responded by insisting that the views of those opposed to recognising whites as African are not representative of the views of most black people. For example, one white student said: ‘The only black people saying anything on this debate are the ones against whites being called “African” but believe me I have lots of black mates who agree with me’. Of course, this may be correct – it was clear from the debate that many black students are happy to embrace white claims to Africanness ... but many are not. How does a white person take seriously black opposition to such claims? A second problem with white claims to be African is that these claims can be made in ways that Frankenberg would describe as being powerevasive. Some, although not all, white South African claims to be African clearly aim to deny and obscure continued racial inequality in South Africa. In 2006, for example, a group of white students at the University of Pretoria painted their faces black during a protest march in which they maintained that white people should be accepted as Africans and that they should be able to tick ‘African’ on employment equity forms. The students said that anyone born in Africa should be considered African and insisted that they would ‘not allow racial classification to deprive [them] of [their] African identity’ (quoted in Govender, 2006). The students also appealed to other white South Africans to classify themselves as African 25 when having to fill in forms relating to employment equity (Kgohloane, 2006). Clearly, this claim to being African seeks to avoid acknowledgement of past and continuing racism and of the resultant need for redress. By choosing to tick ‘African’ on employment equity forms, these students were seeking to undermine attempts at redress in postapartheid South Africa. While other white claims to be African may be less obviously tied up with attempts to protect and perpetuate white privilege, they may also avoid acknowledging the extent to which white oppression of black people has damaged black people and shy away from accepting the necessity of reparations. In a recent book by a self-proclaimed ‘white African’, this becomes very evident. In an ‘informal history’ of ‘the European experience in Africa’, Gerald L’Ange (REF) insists on describing white inhabitants of Africa as ‘white Africans’ while at the same time making several claims that avoid acknowledging the depth of the damage the white presence has done in Africa. For example, while throughout he acknowledges many of the damaging effects slavery, colonialism and apartheid have had on Africa, he makes the following curious comment about white South Africans: Their skills and capital gave South Africa assets possessed by no other African countries, certainly not on the same scale. In turn these assets gave black South Africans a unique chance to avoid following the many other African countries that had gone down the slippery slope from independence to economic ruin, corruption, civil war, dictatorship and despair – and perhaps a chance to haul back those who had slipped (L’Ange 2005:xxviii). 26 Apparently, white South Africans are the potential saviours not only of South Africa but of the whole continent. What this kind of comment illustrates is that the embracing of an African identity on the part of white South Africans is not necessarily incompatible with the same kinds of arrogant and paternalistic views of black people that characterised earlier apartheid-era South African identities. A further problem with white embracing of African identities is that it could serve to trivialise the oppression experienced by black people. As Bailey argues, by embracing the identity of the oppressed group, a white person is able ‘to avoid privilege altogether by imaginatively refashioning her or his identity as privilege-free’ (1999, p.90). Bailey refers to the writing of Andrea Smith, who is of Cherokee descent and who opposes the way in which some white American feminists make claim to a Native American identity by claiming to have been ‘Indian’ in a former life or by practicing certain indigenous spiritual practices: (If theoretically) anyone can be an ‘Indian’, then the term no longer refers to those who have survived 500 years of colonization and genocide ... When everyone becomes ‘Indian’, then it is easy to lose sight of the specificity of oppression faced by those who are Indian in this life.xviii Similar comments have been made about white South African attempts to claim an African identity. Helene Strauss (2006) critically examines Antjie Krog’s A Change of Tongue which Strauss describes as being about ‘postapartheid shifts in identification’ (2006, p.180). Strauss is concerned that the kind of quest for belonging in Africa chronicled in this book – as well as the attempts by some Afrikaners to claim a Khoi woman as the original 27 stammoeder (or ancestress) of the Afrikaner – serve to help white South Africans develop a sense of belonging without doing much at all to challenge racial inequality and white privilege. Strauss suggests that what is needed is not ‘individualistic search[es] for personal fulfilment and belonging’ on the part of white South Africans, but rather the setting into motion of ‘an ongoing process of questioning and debate about the historical contexts and power structures that shape South African processes of identification and racial hierarchisation’ (2006, p.190). These kinds of concerns came through strongly in some of the forum posts quoted earlier where several students insisted that the term ‘African’ refers to people who have a particular experience of oppression and that white South Africans have not had that experience nor can they fully understand it. While white claims to being African may help assuage the sense among many white South Africans that they do not belong and can help white South Africans distance themselves from the objectionable actions of their ancestors, these claims do not necessarily play a role in ending racist oppression and may indeed help obscure white complicity in and white commitment to continuing racial inequality in South Africa. So then what? If the claiming of an African identity is plagued with so many problems, what kind of identity ought white South Africans who are committed to anti-racism be claiming? If white South Africans are not African, what are they? Is denying their African identity and claiming some 28 kind of non-African identity the way forward? Denying African identity sounds worryingly like earlier white South African claims to be representatives of Western civilization in ‘darkest Africa’. The project of trying to ‘reproduce the metropolitan centre as a measure of their selfimage’ and ‘[a]ccentuating their difference from Africans’ was as Ndebele (1987/2007, p.14) notes part of the white ‘civilising mission’ which now stands discredited. Advocating that white South Africans just accept being ‘white’ or see themselves as South Africans but not Africans seem unsatisfactory – what exactly does it mean to be ‘white’ and how can one be South African but not African? Why should any white South African who is committed to anti-racism want to embrace being ‘white’? The problem of how to develop ‘anti-racist forms of whiteness’ in post-apartheid South Africa then seems insoluble – whites cannot continue to insist that they are not African, but insisting that they are African seems fraught with difficulties too. But perhaps what one needs to do is to return to the phrase from Coetzee quoted earlier in which white South Africans are described as being ‘no longer European, not yet African’. Perhaps the kind of identity required is one that accepts the ‘inbetweenness’ of white South Africans and involves a commitment by white South Africans to strive to become African. But what would such becoming entail? To close, I would like to tentatively suggest some features that could characterise such a process of becoming and to point to some literature that is helpful in thinking about this process. Firstly, as pointed out by Van Niekerk (2006), being an African entails standing in solidarity with 29 Africans. He points to a key passage in Mbeki’s often quoted I am an African speech: The pain of the violent conflict that the peoples of Liberia, Somalia, the Sudan, Burundi and Algeria [suffer] is a pain I also bear. The dismal shame of poverty, suffering and human degradation of my continent is a blight that we share (cited in Van Niekerk, 2006). Until white South Africans feel pain at the suffering of other Africans and pride at Africans’ achievements, they are unlikely to be accepted as Africans. One of the students quoted earlier makes this point very clearly, insisting that being an African entails identification with those who were wronged in the past and ‘the celebration of today’s liberties and an awareness of all the people who still suffer in this beautiful continent because of its perverse past’. Ndebele suggests that white South Africans need to take this solidarity with Africans to the point that they are willing to recognise and repudiate the ‘global sanctity of the white body’, refusing to accept the ‘protectiveness assured by international whiteness’ and rather ‘sharing in the vulnerability of other compatriot bodies’(Ndebele, 2000, p.53). I must admit that what exactly this sharing entails and how exactly a white person can achieve it, remains unclear to me, but this idea merits further exploration. How can white South Africans demonstrate (and not just verbally express) solidarity with black Africans and what kind of risks will doing this entail? I would argue that a second feature of such a process of becoming African is that it must entail what Lugones (1987) calls ‘world-travelling’. xix Lugones argues that women of colourxx in the USA of necessity travel to worlds in which they are not comfortable and may find themselves 30 developing different identities in different worlds. This ‘travelling’ refers to both literal and figurative travelling into unfamiliar worlds. Taking up Lugones’ idea, Bailey insists that white people can only develop anti-racist identities if they ‘get out of those locations and texts where they feel at home ... [and] put [their] privileged identitites at risk by travelling to worlds where [they] often feel ill at ease or off-center’ (Bailey, 1998, p.40). Lugones makes it clear, however, that not just any world-travelling will result in ‘cross-cultural and cross-racial loving’ (1987, pp.3-4). She uses Marilyn Frye’s (1983) contrast between arrogant and loving perception to explore which kind of world-travelling is required. While arrogant perception involves the failure to identify with those one sees, Frye describes ‘the loving eye’ as being ‘the eye of one who knows that to know the seen, one must consult something other than one’s own will and interests and fears and imagination’ (cited in Lugones, 1987, p.8). When world-travelling involves loving rather than arrogant perception, then it becomes a way of identifying with those in this other world and of coming to understand ‘what it is to be them and what it is to be ourselves in their eyes’ (Lugones, 1987, p.17). A word of caution is required here, however. World-travelling, especially if not done with ‘loving eyes’, can very easily become unwelcome intrusion. After all, colonisation is, in some sense, worldtravelling. Sullivan warns of the ‘habit [among white people] of claiming a “right” to project themselves into any and all spaces’ (2006, p.165). She argues that for world-travelling to be more than just a ‘feel-good project of self-growth’, white people must be ‘willing to experience the psychological 31 difficulty of being decentred in and criticized by the new world in which they enter’ (2006, p.181). Pushing this point further, Biko is adamant at times that white people need to leave black people alone, giving them space to lead their own struggles [ref]. While I insist that white people will not be able to learn anti-racism without listening to and talking with black people, it is important that this contact not be intrusive and it is difficult to determine exactly how to ensure that it is not.xxi It is also necessary that white people who wish to be involved in anti-racist struggles take seriously the point made over and again in black consciousness writings about the importance that anti-racist struggles must be lead by black people.xxii Discussing white South Africans’ need to achieve ‘a new sense of cultural rootedness’, Ndebele (2000, p.52) makes a point which is similar to Lugones’ point about world-travelling. He argues that the postapartheid situation requires a two-way flow of social influence between black and white people. He stresses, however, that ‘white South Africa will be called upon to make greater adjustments to black needs than the other way around’ (2000, p.52). His comments acknowledge the need for white people to feel ‘rooted’, but insist that this rootedness can only be established if white people are willing to negotiate with black South Africans, to open themselves up to ‘new cultural experience’ and to put themselves at risk (2000, pp.52-53). What Ndebele suggests has some similarities to Makgoba’s call for whites to take on the values and practices of black South Africans. Like Makgoba, Ndebele stresses that white South Africans need to step out of 32 their white worlds and, for example, to learn to speak African languages. However, Makgoba’s suggestion that white people ‘imitate’ black South Africans suggests a kind of superficial embrace of stereotypically African things, rather than a deep engagement with and openness to the experiences and viewpoints of black South Africans. Furthermore, Makgoba ignores diversity within black experiences and black culture – not all black people dance like Lebo and dress like Madiba, nor should they. In contrast to Makgoba, Ndebele is not suggesting that white people must take on typically African practices, pastimes or culinary preferences, but rather simply that white people need to be willing to step out of their ‘comfort zones’ and allow themselves to be confronted by black South Africans. White people need to ‘world travel’ and they need to do so with the ‘loving eyes’ Frye and Lugones speak about. Finally and to close, it is worth moving away from the question of how individual white people can develop anti-racist forms of whiteness to ask a broader, but related, question: how can we create the kind of South African political community in which white people can belong but also in which racial oppression is recognised and uprooted? [the way this is stated suggests that white belonging is of utmost importance.] What kind of state do we need in the post-apartheid setting? Mahmood Mamdani (1998) asks the question ‘when does a settler become a native?’ In many ways, the desire by white South Africans to be considered African is a desire to be considered not only as a citizen of an African country, but also as a native. While I cannot deal with his argument at length here, his discussion of citizenship in Africa provides some provocative ideas for 33 those thinking about the issues under discussion here (see Mamdani 1996; 1998). He argues that settlers cannot just be declared natives while the injustices of colonialism remain unredressed. A single citizenship needs to be created through the reform of the structure of the state that created the division between settlers and natives. This entails not a mere rewriting of the constitution, but rather an ‘overall metamorphosis whereby erstwhile colonizers and colonized are politically reborn as equal members of a single political community’ (1998, p.8). This can only be achieved through the creation of the ‘practical base’ upon which such citizenship would be built and this practical base requires that extensive reparations be made for the injustices of the past. 34 References Aanerud, R. (2007). The Legacy of White Supremacy and the Challenge of White Antiracist Mothering, Hypatia 22(2), 20-38. Anderson, M.L. (2003). Whitewashing race: A critical perspective on whiteness. In A. Doane and E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White out: the continuing significance of racism (pp. 21-34). New York: Routledge. Bailey, A. (1998). Locating traitorous identities: Toward a view of privilegecognizant white character. Hypatia 13(3), 27-42. Bailey, A. (1999). Despising an identity they taught me to claim. In C.J. Cuomo and K.Q. Hall (Eds.), Whiteness: Feminist philosophical reflections. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Biko, S.B. (1970/2004). Black Souls in White Skins, republished in I write what I like (pp. 20-28). Johannesburg: Picador Africa. Biko, S.B. (1973/2004). Black Consciousness and the quest for a true humanity, republished in I write what I like (pp. 20-28). Johannesburg: Picador Africa. Coetzee, J.M. (1988). White writing: On the culture of letters in South Africa. New Haven: Yale University Press. Coetzee, J.M. (2009). Summertime. London: Harvill Secker. Doane, A. and Bonilla-Silva, E. (Eds.), (2003). White out: the continuing significance of racism. New York: Routledge. Du Preez, M. (2005, 4 November). Proud to be African. Daily News, p. 14. Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Frye, M. (1983). The politics of reality: Essays in feminist theory. Trumansburg, NY: Crossing. Govender, S. (2006, 6 October). White students change skin colour in equity protest. Pretoria News, p. 3. Hoeane, T. (2005, 16 April). Makgoba’s ‘baboon’ comment disturbing. Weekend Post, p.8. Karenga, M. (1999). Whiteness studies: Deceptive or welcome discourse? Black Issues in Higher Education, 16(6), p. 26. 35 Kemp Spies, Y. (2007, 31 May). I am white and an African and nobody has the right to take away this birthright. Cape Times, p. 11. Kgohloane, P. (2006, 6 October). ‘African’ students state their case in black and white. The Herald, p. 1. Krog, A. (2003) A Change of Tongue. Johannesburg: Random House. L’Ange, G. (2005). The white Africans: From colonisation to liberation. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball. Lugones, M. (1987) Playfulness, ‘world’-travelling and loving perception, Hypatia 2(2), 3-19. Mafeje, A. (1997). The national question in southern African settler societies. Harare: SAPES Books. Makgoba, M. (2005, 31 March) Wrath of dethroned white males. Mail & Guardian, p.23. Mamdani, M. (1996) Citizen and subject: contemporary Africa and the legacy of late colonialism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mamdani, M. (1998) When Does a Settler Become a Native? Reflections of the Colonial Roots of Citizenship in Equatorial and South Africa. Text of Inaugural Lecture as A C Jordan Professor of African Studies, University of Cape Town, Lecture Theatre 1, Education Building, Middle Campus, Wednesday 13 May 1998, retrieved from http://hrp.bard.edu/resource_pdfs/mamdani.settler.pdf. Mbeki, T. (1996) I am an African: Adoption of South African Constitution Bill 1996 (08/05/1996). Retrieved from: http://www.polity.org.za/article/mbeki-i-am-an-african-adoption-of-saconstitution-bill-1996-08051996-2004-01-01. McAuliffe, L. (2009, 3 April). Zuma: Afrikaners are only true white South African tribe. Sowetan, retrieved from http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=973236. Morrell, R. (2005, 7 April) White, male, democrat, African. Mail & Guardian, p.22. Morris, M. (2005, 14 April) It’s my country and I’ll whinge if I want to. Mail & Guardian, p.25. Morrison, T. (1992). Playing in the dark: Whiteness and the literary imagination. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 36 Ndebele, N. (1987/2007). Good Morning South Africa: Whose universities, whose standards? Republished in Fine lines from the box (pp. 13-18). compiled by S. Raditlhalo. Roggebaai: Umuzi. Ndebele, N. (2000) Iph’indlela? Finding our way into the future. Social Dynamics 26(1):43-55. Nuttall, S. (2001) Subjectivities of Whiteness. African Studies Review 44(2): 115-140. Ramogale, M. (2005, 21 April). No room for domination. Mail & Guardian, p. 21. Rasmussen, B.B., Klinenberg, E., Nexica, I.J. and Wray, M. (2001). The making and unmaking of whiteness. Durham: Duke University Press. Smith, A. (1994) For all those who were Indian in a former life. Cultural Survival Quarterly, retrieved from http://www.anoliscircle.com/forthosewho.htm. Steyn, M.E. (2001) Whiteness just isn’t what it used to be: White identity in a changing South Africa. Albany: State University of New York Press. Strauss, H. (2006) From Afrikaner to African: whiteness and the politics of translation in Antjie Krog’s A Change of Tongue. African Identities, 4(2), 179-194. Stubblefield, A. (2008) Revealing whiteness: The unconscious habits of racial privilege (review). Hypatia 23(2), pp. 190-193. Sullivan, S. (2006) Revealing whiteness: The unconscious habits of racial privilege. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Van Niekerk, J. (2006, 11 December) What is wanted is not residence but solidarity, Mail & Guardian, retrieved from http://www.mg.co.za/article/2006-12-11-what-is-wanted-not-residencebut-solidarity. Van Zyl Slabbert, F. (1999) Afrikaner Afrikaan: anecdotes en analise [Afrikaner Afrikaan: anecdotes and analysis]. Cape Town: Tafelberg. Wicomb, Z. (2001) Five Afrikaner texts and the rehabilitation of whiteness. In R. Kriger and A. Zegeye (Eds.), Culture in the New South Africa (pp. 159-182). Kwela: Cape Town. 37 38 Because I am a white South African myself, it may be more appropriate for me to use ‘we’ rather than ‘they’ when discussing white South Africans. However, I am concerned that the use of ‘we’ would create the sense of this being a discussion between white South Africans about white South Africans and that is not my intention here. For this reason, I have chosen to use the term ‘they’ throughout, but would like to acknowledge at the outset my belonging to this category. i I use the terms ‘black’ in this article to refer to all those who were previously discriminated against under apartheid. The term ‘white’ refers to all those who would have been classified as ‘white’ under apartheid legislation. I will avoid using the term ‘African’ to refer to any particular South African group as the question of who is an African is precisely what is at issue in this article. ii As indicated earlier, I use ‘black’ in the inclusive sense and avoid the use of ‘African’ in order to avoid confusion as the question of who is an African is at issue here. However, it should be noted that most of the students referred to in the text as ‘black’ would be classified as ‘African’ according to current South African employment equity classification. iii I set up two separate online forums, one in 2008 and one in 2009. The forums were set up through the Moodle online course management system. Only students enrolled in the course concerned were able to view the forums. Together the forums attracted 180 posts and each forum attracted over 1000 views, indicating that a large number of students viewed the debate even if they did not actually participate in it. Please note that while there were actually two separate debates and while students from 2009 could not view the comments made by students from 2008, the debates followed fairly similar lines and so I will summarise them together and refer to them from now on as ‘the debate’ rather than ‘the debates’. iv Of course, the white students could, and some did, ignore or dismiss black students’ views; however, they were made aware of these views and most felt it necessary to take them into account. v Note that this student made a distinction between the ‘general definition’ of an African and the definition of an African for the purposes of thinking about Afrocentricity. This kind of distinction is discussed later on. vi The author of this post is a white Zimbabwean rather than white South African student. vii Isphandla (often written as isiphandla) refers to animal skin bracelets which are worn after certain ceremonies in some South African cultures (especially Xhosa and Zulu cultures). viii This student is referring to an incident at the University of the Free State in which some white students made a film in which black people were depicted eating food which had apparently been urinated upon by the white students. ix x NATIONALITY The use of ‘they’ in this post suggests that the participant is white, but it should be noted that this contribution was made by a black participant. xi Ladysmith Black Mambazo is one of South Africa’s most well-known and long established choral group. ‘Lebo’ refers to the late Lebo Mathosa, a South African singer and dancer, and Madiba refers to Nelson Mandela. When saying that white people should eat ‘smiley and walkies’, Makgoba refers to sheep heads (smileys) and chicken feet (walkies). Lekgotla is the Setswana/Sesotho word for a public meeting. xii It should be noted that it was not only white South Africans who responded critically to Makgoba’s article. See for example Hoeane (2005) and Ramogale (2005). xiii Although, as Van Niekerk (2006) notes, the speech is not as unambiguously in favour of the idea of white people being included in the category ‘African’ as some suggest. xiv For discussions of other texts dealing with this issue, see Nuttall (2001) and Wicomb (2001). xv For an overview of whiteness studies see Doane (2003), Fine or Rasmussen et al. (2001). For critical commentary on whiteness studies see Anderson (2003) and Karenga (1999). xvi Note that the use of the term ‘colour-blind’ is criticized by Stubblefield for involving the use of ‘ableist language’ and suggests ‘colour-evasiveness’ as a better alternative. xvii Cited in Bailey 1999, p.91. Smith’s article is available online at http://www.anoliscircle.com/forthosewho.htm. See also Sullivan (2006, pp.135-136) for further critique on white Americans’ appropriation of Native American culture. xviii Lugone’s writes it as ‘”world”-travelling’, but I will use the less cumbersome ‘worldtravelling’. In the article, she spends considerable time discussing what she means by ‘world’ (see pp. 9-12). xix Lugones uses the term ‘women of colour’. She uses it to refer both to African American women, but also to those like herself who live in the United States but are of central or South American origin. xx Sullivan (2006) spends considerable time on this question – her comments are helpful in thinking about when world-travelling may and may not be appropriate. xxi See Biko (1972 [white racism and black consciousness]), Ndebele (2007[2000], pp.131-132) [others?] xxii