The question of who is an African has once again arisen in a recently reported incident in which a Western Cape teacher, Glen Snyman, was accused of committing a “crime” for stating in a job application that he is an African, instead of classifying himself as coloured.
This is one of the indicators of widening chasms between the non-racial aspirations espoused in the Constitution and the continued reality of racialised colonial, class and gender inequalities. Increasingly, these raise an important question of how we should build a non-racial South Africa, in which being an African will not be defined by skin colour.
There have been two main competing conceptions of who is an African: One identifies Africans by race and genealogical origin; the other, what Ali Mazrui referred to as “Africans of the soil”, identifies Africans by geographical location in Africa regardless of race – akin to the Freedom Charter.
Colonialism defined Africans in racial and ethnic terms to encompass what it considered pre-colonial indigenous Africans. Asians (largely Indians) and coloureds were excluded from being Africans but classified as black. These classifications were indexes to determine and justify allocation not only of political rights, but economic resources such as access to land, social welfare and employment. Black people were differentially incorporated in the colonial power structure, with Africans at the bottom of the ladder. Africans (as colonially defined) were not only denied supervisory or senior managerial roles but were also subjected to Bantu education – the most inferior and underfunded education. In that racialised class structure, Indian South Africans could operate businesses on the outskirts of towns and cities.
Except for a few organisations such as the SACP and Unity Movement, black people organised themselves separately according to colonial classification. Africans were organised under the ANC, coloureds under the South African Coloured People’s Organisation and Indians under the South African Indian Congress. It was only in 1969 that both black and white South Africans could become members of the ANC; and in 1985 that all ANC members could occupy leadership positions.
Some among the colonisers and colonised adopted exclusive nationalist visions of who belongs to South Africa and who is an African. Narrow African nationalism defined Africanness to the exclusion of white South Africans, captured in the slogan, “Africa for Africans”. Because of the continuation of racialised class inequalities, exclusive African nationalism is still appealing to the historical victims of colonialism and apartheid. By the same token, exclusive white nationalism still appeals to some white African compatriots, who rationalise and defend colonially accumulated power and privilege.
Colonialism further divided Africans into ethnic groups and later placed them under Bantustan administrations that promoted and reinforced narrow ethnic consciousness and pre-colonial and colonial patriarchy. The mono-ethnic spatial spaces remain in post-apartheid South Africa, which continue to set the material basis for political ethnic consciousness and mobilisation.
Hendrik Biebouw, a white settler, is the first to identify himself as an African, in 1707. Others followed suit, and the African language that they spoke developed into Afrikaans.
Due to its colonial legacy, colour remains a proxy for inequality, poverty and unemployment in today’s South Africa. These inequalities cannot be solved solely through market mechanisms. It is in this context that the state has had to introduce black economic empowerment and affirmative action to correct historical injustices. As part of nation-building, proficiency in at least two African languages should also be part of Affirmative Action requirements for employment for all South Africans.
Among the oppressed, an inclusive notion of an African is captured in the Freedom Charter statement: “South Africa belongs to all who live in it…”. The charter identifies anyone born and bred within South Africa’s geographical boundaries as an African, regardless of race, gender and creed. It is worth noting that the Freedom Charter’s vision remains aspirational and not yet fully realised.
For instance, expressions of a common South African identity and patriotism in post-apartheid South Africa seem easier when we celebrate international sports victories such as the rugby World Cup. As soon as the sports events pass, the fragile non-racial national unity breaks into smithereens. But the material reality is that black people, particularly Africans (as colonially defined), still suffer the brunt of poverty, unemployment and inequality.
There is, on the other end, a mistaken argument that only having black Africans in the state machinery is correct because the private sector is white-dominated. This thinking is fundamentally flawed, because it would rob the ANC of its leadership role in society. In whatever we do, including organisational composition of the ANC, we must prefigure the non-racial and non-sexist South Africa that we seek to build. Otherwise, there would be no difference between the non-racialists and narrow nationalists who define Africans by their colour.
Being non-racial is not to ignore racial inequalities.
Our aspirational definition of who is an African cannot be reduced to race or ethnicity because it would be tantamount to the self-same colonial racist classification that we seek to correct. Identifying Africans in racial terms excludes white South Africans who have never known any other country except South Africa. Most Africans in South Africa and on the continent are black, but not all Africans are black.
Furthermore, since Africa is the cradle of humankind – the birthplace of Homo sapiens – how far back in time do you go to determine ancestry?
Aspirational and colonial definitions should be used for different purposes. The colonially inherited definition should help us to recognise the current reality of colonial divisions of the past and how to restore justice. How else do we know who suffered under political forms of racial domination and continue to do so, without using colonial classification?
Due to its colonial legacy, colour remains a proxy for inequality, poverty and unemployment in today’s South Africa. These inequalities cannot be solved solely through market mechanisms. It is in this context that the state has had to introduce black economic empowerment and affirmative action to correct historical injustices. As part of nation-building, proficiency in at least two African languages should also be part of Affirmative Action requirements for employment for all South Africans.
The inclusive and non-racial definition of who is an African should be used to reimagine a non-racial South Africa we seek to build here and now, without ignoring the past. Economic growth and transformation are essential in building a truly non-racial South Africa in which both black and white Africans will be Africans, in real terms. DM