The 2010 World Cup and the Imperial Narrative of Racial Prejudice
In what may pass as one of the high points of journalism in post-apartheid South Africa, a controversial article published in the Mail&Guardian nearly two years ago became a must read for students and architects of the new political dispensation. A South African don Malegapuru Makgoba controversially likened the South African white male with the male bonobo, a species of the baboon. The allegory was intended at capturing what he saw as a quarrelsome, unpatriotic white male professional at war with the ‘new South Africa’. Makgoba argued that bonobos ‘are often headed by a dominant male with pretenders to the throne hanging around. The dominant male ensures that progeny are not only his through reproduction, but also that all members of the colony imitate him. He becomes the “gold standard”. Ultimately the dominant male is dethroned by a younger and fitter male, only to repeat another variation, cycle of hierarchy, dominance and imitation’. When this happens, he said, ‘the dethroned male becomes depressed, quarrelsome and a spoiler of the new order until he gets ostracised from the colony to lead a frustrated, lonely and unhappy life. This is our primate heritage’. Noting humanity’s likeness to the primate, he argued that the white male in South Africa was displaying similar symptoms of the dethroned bonobo and that these were ‘evident in the caustic, negative terms in which the debate about black economic empowerment is framed; in the ways in which black executives are vilified; and in the way in which employment equity is always viewed through the prism of its impact on the longevity and well-being of the (dethroned) white male’.
The article predictably drew venomous criticism especially from the accused. From Pretoria to Cape Town, the white male saw Makgoba as the face of black racism. But for keen observers, what seems to have shocked South Africa, both white and black, was the fact that for the first time in the mainstream press a black pundit was drawing an unflattering template within which the white male would be fitted. The ‘gold standard’ had been attacked. There had been no precedence and the criticism was such that even the liberal newspaper ensured the good professor had his five minutes of fame before ‘order’ was restored. I revisit this story for one particular reason; it provides a useful window into discussing the Observer’s punditry especially on South Africa in recent times. A few weeks ago Mercel Berlins talked about South Africa’s new-found desire to obliterate its past expressed partly in what he described as a rampant name change in cities such as Durban. Because of this, Berlins now fears for South Africa’s future. The article was not only inaccurate it was in every bit patronizing and paternalistic. Berlins argued that some streets in Durban are being named after some obscure ANC activists. Berlins failed to appreciate the selective nature of mainstream history; he refused to accept that those who may be obscure to him may not be obscure to Zulus in Durban. He did not for a moment appreciate the fact that what he called an obliteration of the past may very be a recovery of an obliterated history. Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria and other places all had names before the Boers arrived in Cape Town. Two weeks on, Xan Rice’s article on the preparedness or otherwise of South Africa to host the 2010 world cup raised equally contentious issues. Admittedly, the piece was beautifully written, informative and delightful in its simple but elaborate engagement with both mainstream politics and the often ignored alternative politics of the 2010 World Cup. It revealed the complex nature of a country of two, nay, three nations; one white and affluent, another emergent, black and middle class and the other poor and black, the forgotten citizen of the townships. Yet the story was still defined by the usual imperial narratives, the patronizing attitude where whiteness defines what is right and what is wrong and defends it as though it must be legitimate, and doubly so in this case because South Africa is the writer’s country of birth. He therefore must be right.
A passing acquaintance with discourse analysis would make you problematise Rice’s introductory remarks about the ‘few white students seated in a sea of black faces’. It may be a useful form of expression, a common sense practice, but in fact it encodes values that stratify society. But to focus solely on this would be to ignore the broader picture. Rice’s article raises the legitimate question about crime in South Africa. The levels of crime in the country cannot be defended. But to equally de-contextualise its roots would be to avoid the very means through which it may be understood and ultimately solved. Tragically predictable, the issue of crime according Rice was brought into sharp relief, its magnitude communicated to the world because David Rattray the acclaimed historian was killed on his lodge in Kwazulu-Natal in January. We are also reminded of the barricaded homes in Johannesburg’s Northern suburbs, mostly domiciles of rich white folk. When statistics indicate that 19,000 are murdered in a year, 99 per cent of those killed usually are black and poor. Yet because they don’t make ‘interesting’ reading, they are often reported as inanimate objects, statistics. Indeed, murdering them by their thousands does not make South Africa unsafe. It is the murder of the one per cent or less, almost always white that makes this country unsafe. It is the security of the hundreds of thousands of white fans who will visit the country during the 2010 World Cup that matters, not the tens of hundreds that are killed in Soweto and Germiston, and in the Cape Flats, every day. But that is the standard narrative for which we may not blame Rice. Indeed, one is reminded of the scholar Jaap Van Ginneken’s theory about numbers in murders. For many western correspondents, the murder of one white man equal 10,000 black lives. And that is a very conservative estimate. This is not racism it is prejudice of another kind.
Rice raises the red flag when discussing the prospects of a ‘fan fest’ in Africa’s crime-ridden cities. Will the white fans be safe? The fact that South Africa successfully hosted the Rugby World Cup or even the Cricket World Cup is simply immaterial, not so much because the numbers involved were perhaps lower but precisely because trumpeting such success would problematise the official narrative of an unstable, violent Africa. Even though it may make uncomfortable reading especially coming from a president, when Thabo Mbeki talked about a section of the white population running scared about the arrival or ‘the coming of the Kaffirs’ whenever an incident of crime is reported, this is also the uncomfortable truth.
Unlike other countries, crime in South African cannot be divorced from the country’s history. The South African black male is not born a criminal. It is his social circumstances that make him turn to crime. This is not an excuse for the murders across the country. But when you have young men whose fathers did not go to school because of apartheid and therefore are either poorly paid laborers who can barely make ends meet, or unemployed in a country that is moving away from being labor intensive to a skills intensive economy and thus see no future for them, when you have township boys who see their age mates from the Northern suburbs drive BMWs to school while they hang on to trains or dilapidated taxis, or miss school because they cannot afford the fare, you will understand the angst and anger that makes crime a survival strategy. Their living conditions have made them feel sub-human; poverty has effectively taken away their humanity. They don’t kill for thrills; they do so because they do not know what it means to be human anymore. History and society has denied them right to be normal. Yes, South Africa must care for its own and the government must address the disconnect that the head of Platform for Public Deliberation, Xolela Mangcu talks about between emergent black middle class and the township folk. But this inclination to describe the South African black male as though he is born a murderer is cruel, stupid and stupendously prejudicial.
But the black male is not the only subject of the imperial narrative in Rice’s story. He very generously uses quotes from Trevor Philips, the outgoing Chairman of South Africa’s Premier Soccer League (PSL). A bully, arrogant man, Phillips finds it credible to advise the South African government to organize a World Cup experience that is uniquely African, a place he describes as perfect for partying and having a people with a generous spirit. It is a place where ‘when a bus comes 10 minutes late nobody gives a toss because they are having such a good time instead!’ The depth of such abuse is unparalleled. Again, the picture painted is of the lazy black man. Does Philips take the bus to work? Does he know just how his fellow white folk deal with their black employees who report to work late because the buses are late? Does he know how black workers are packed every morning in ramshackle taxis like sardines just so they arrive to work on time to keep Philips and white suburbia thriving? What Philips said was not the least humorous and I am still struggling to accept how such prejudice is passed as fact. But that was not all; the World Cup fans are reminded that if they are not murdered, they will get more that what they bargained for from the girls that walk the Durban beachfront! The South African black male is a marauding criminal while the African girl is a diseased flirt, preying on the innocent white folk! Beware fans, either way you will get back home in a body bag!
When Rice talks about costs, affordability and priority, he forgets to mention that in terms of social classes, the British society takes its place as one of the most socially segregated societies both historically and in our times. Even stranger is that it is a segregation that is so tragically put on public display everyday and finds expression for example in football stadia (box seats), in neighbourhoods and other. If you spoke to the poor of South or East London, or even thought about the NHS you would rethink the Olympics as a priority. But while London is allowed to make mistakes, while it is understandable that costs to host the Olympics can balloon, there’s no margin for such error in Africa. It only affirms the continent’s incompetence and lack of priority. Had the arch in the new Durban stadium been smaller than that at Wembley, it would not have been an issue. The fact that it is bigger makes it a story because it affirms the native’s streak of excess and grandeur.
The article predictably drew venomous criticism especially from the accused. From Pretoria to Cape Town, the white male saw Makgoba as the face of black racism. But for keen observers, what seems to have shocked South Africa, both white and black, was the fact that for the first time in the mainstream press a black pundit was drawing an unflattering template within which the white male would be fitted. The ‘gold standard’ had been attacked. There had been no precedence and the criticism was such that even the liberal newspaper ensured the good professor had his five minutes of fame before ‘order’ was restored. I revisit this story for one particular reason; it provides a useful window into discussing the Observer’s punditry especially on South Africa in recent times. A few weeks ago Mercel Berlins talked about South Africa’s new-found desire to obliterate its past expressed partly in what he described as a rampant name change in cities such as Durban. Because of this, Berlins now fears for South Africa’s future. The article was not only inaccurate it was in every bit patronizing and paternalistic. Berlins argued that some streets in Durban are being named after some obscure ANC activists. Berlins failed to appreciate the selective nature of mainstream history; he refused to accept that those who may be obscure to him may not be obscure to Zulus in Durban. He did not for a moment appreciate the fact that what he called an obliteration of the past may very be a recovery of an obliterated history. Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria and other places all had names before the Boers arrived in Cape Town. Two weeks on, Xan Rice’s article on the preparedness or otherwise of South Africa to host the 2010 world cup raised equally contentious issues. Admittedly, the piece was beautifully written, informative and delightful in its simple but elaborate engagement with both mainstream politics and the often ignored alternative politics of the 2010 World Cup. It revealed the complex nature of a country of two, nay, three nations; one white and affluent, another emergent, black and middle class and the other poor and black, the forgotten citizen of the townships. Yet the story was still defined by the usual imperial narratives, the patronizing attitude where whiteness defines what is right and what is wrong and defends it as though it must be legitimate, and doubly so in this case because South Africa is the writer’s country of birth. He therefore must be right.
A passing acquaintance with discourse analysis would make you problematise Rice’s introductory remarks about the ‘few white students seated in a sea of black faces’. It may be a useful form of expression, a common sense practice, but in fact it encodes values that stratify society. But to focus solely on this would be to ignore the broader picture. Rice’s article raises the legitimate question about crime in South Africa. The levels of crime in the country cannot be defended. But to equally de-contextualise its roots would be to avoid the very means through which it may be understood and ultimately solved. Tragically predictable, the issue of crime according Rice was brought into sharp relief, its magnitude communicated to the world because David Rattray the acclaimed historian was killed on his lodge in Kwazulu-Natal in January. We are also reminded of the barricaded homes in Johannesburg’s Northern suburbs, mostly domiciles of rich white folk. When statistics indicate that 19,000 are murdered in a year, 99 per cent of those killed usually are black and poor. Yet because they don’t make ‘interesting’ reading, they are often reported as inanimate objects, statistics. Indeed, murdering them by their thousands does not make South Africa unsafe. It is the murder of the one per cent or less, almost always white that makes this country unsafe. It is the security of the hundreds of thousands of white fans who will visit the country during the 2010 World Cup that matters, not the tens of hundreds that are killed in Soweto and Germiston, and in the Cape Flats, every day. But that is the standard narrative for which we may not blame Rice. Indeed, one is reminded of the scholar Jaap Van Ginneken’s theory about numbers in murders. For many western correspondents, the murder of one white man equal 10,000 black lives. And that is a very conservative estimate. This is not racism it is prejudice of another kind.
Rice raises the red flag when discussing the prospects of a ‘fan fest’ in Africa’s crime-ridden cities. Will the white fans be safe? The fact that South Africa successfully hosted the Rugby World Cup or even the Cricket World Cup is simply immaterial, not so much because the numbers involved were perhaps lower but precisely because trumpeting such success would problematise the official narrative of an unstable, violent Africa. Even though it may make uncomfortable reading especially coming from a president, when Thabo Mbeki talked about a section of the white population running scared about the arrival or ‘the coming of the Kaffirs’ whenever an incident of crime is reported, this is also the uncomfortable truth.
Unlike other countries, crime in South African cannot be divorced from the country’s history. The South African black male is not born a criminal. It is his social circumstances that make him turn to crime. This is not an excuse for the murders across the country. But when you have young men whose fathers did not go to school because of apartheid and therefore are either poorly paid laborers who can barely make ends meet, or unemployed in a country that is moving away from being labor intensive to a skills intensive economy and thus see no future for them, when you have township boys who see their age mates from the Northern suburbs drive BMWs to school while they hang on to trains or dilapidated taxis, or miss school because they cannot afford the fare, you will understand the angst and anger that makes crime a survival strategy. Their living conditions have made them feel sub-human; poverty has effectively taken away their humanity. They don’t kill for thrills; they do so because they do not know what it means to be human anymore. History and society has denied them right to be normal. Yes, South Africa must care for its own and the government must address the disconnect that the head of Platform for Public Deliberation, Xolela Mangcu talks about between emergent black middle class and the township folk. But this inclination to describe the South African black male as though he is born a murderer is cruel, stupid and stupendously prejudicial.
But the black male is not the only subject of the imperial narrative in Rice’s story. He very generously uses quotes from Trevor Philips, the outgoing Chairman of South Africa’s Premier Soccer League (PSL). A bully, arrogant man, Phillips finds it credible to advise the South African government to organize a World Cup experience that is uniquely African, a place he describes as perfect for partying and having a people with a generous spirit. It is a place where ‘when a bus comes 10 minutes late nobody gives a toss because they are having such a good time instead!’ The depth of such abuse is unparalleled. Again, the picture painted is of the lazy black man. Does Philips take the bus to work? Does he know just how his fellow white folk deal with their black employees who report to work late because the buses are late? Does he know how black workers are packed every morning in ramshackle taxis like sardines just so they arrive to work on time to keep Philips and white suburbia thriving? What Philips said was not the least humorous and I am still struggling to accept how such prejudice is passed as fact. But that was not all; the World Cup fans are reminded that if they are not murdered, they will get more that what they bargained for from the girls that walk the Durban beachfront! The South African black male is a marauding criminal while the African girl is a diseased flirt, preying on the innocent white folk! Beware fans, either way you will get back home in a body bag!
When Rice talks about costs, affordability and priority, he forgets to mention that in terms of social classes, the British society takes its place as one of the most socially segregated societies both historically and in our times. Even stranger is that it is a segregation that is so tragically put on public display everyday and finds expression for example in football stadia (box seats), in neighbourhoods and other. If you spoke to the poor of South or East London, or even thought about the NHS you would rethink the Olympics as a priority. But while London is allowed to make mistakes, while it is understandable that costs to host the Olympics can balloon, there’s no margin for such error in Africa. It only affirms the continent’s incompetence and lack of priority. Had the arch in the new Durban stadium been smaller than that at Wembley, it would not have been an issue. The fact that it is bigger makes it a story because it affirms the native’s streak of excess and grandeur.
posted by Janam at 8:39 AM
0 comments
