By Thorne Godinho
The recent spat between Helen Zille, Premier of the Western Cape, and the Afro-Jazz musician Simphiwe Dana can only be described as a traditional South African race row. Back-and-forth accusations, patronising ignorance, and overly offended sensibilities – the hallmarks of such a vulgar debate. Within the mind-numbing miasma of this twitter war, one could easily have missed Simphiwe Dana’s divisive comment about what constitutes being an African. With hundreds of users jumping in and coalescing around the notion that either Cape Town is or isn’t racist, Dana tweeted: “Nope. We’re not all Afrikans (sic)” in reply to a “we’re all African – regardless of our race, let’s get along”-type tweet.
Was I the only person to have noticed this appropriation of populist politics by Dana? And why was no one else outraged? To answer the latter question: the opinion that white people are not African (or African enough) has become acceptable in South Africa. Commentators like Sentletse Diakanyo have aggressively defended this opinion in the public sphere, and now a popular South African musician has nonchalantly beamed this idea – which was irrelevant to the greater Cape Town question — across the internet. South Africans should recognise the dangerous nature of these comments – and the mainstreaming of such ideas.
Simphiwe Dana’s opinion is comparable to the rhetoric of the European Far-Right, who base their political platforms on the premise that Arab Muslim and African immigrants have no place in an ageing Europe. David Theo Goldberg refers to this as ‘Euro-racism’ in his book The Threat of Race: Reflections on Racial Neoliberalism. He goes on to state: “… Euro-racism ensures that those ‘racially non-European’ are never nor can ever be European, or at least European enough.” Whereas immigration in Europe, for example, is a more recent political issue, the migration of people from Europe and Asia to South Africa has been prominent in our history for over 300 years.
Sentletse Diakanyo believes the term ‘African’ only denotes one’s race, analysing the historical use of the term as a means to rebut the idea that all who call Africa home are in fact Africans. Ideologically, the term ‘African’ has often been used to bolster nationalist and Pan-Africanist fervour. However, the creation of a new South Africa, one with a liberal democratic constitution, should have signalled the proud annexation of the term ‘African’ by South Africa’s new toolbox of values – unity, human rights, and equality. In fact: the idea that many South Africans can (and do) now buy into the vision of a united country and shared future on this continent – as Africans – should be a positive sign of change. It should be hailed as a step towards a future free of racism, and of a liberal South Africa where citizens can be whoever they want to be – African or not.
The repudiation of Simphiwe Dana’s comments would take place almost anywhere else. Had she said Latinos were not actually real Americans, for example, she’d have faced considerable criticism. Had she tweeted about Muslim immigrants in England, the organisation Unite against Fascism (UAF) would surely have taken her on. Unfortunately, Dana loses her moral legitimacy as a crusader against racism when she reverts to the conservative town hall politics of a polarised America and Europe.
Although Ayaan Hirsi Ali, prominent Somali-born activist and former Dutch parliamentarian, and the enigmatic Dutch politician Geert Wilders share common concerns with regards to immigration in Holland, Hirsi Ali has called for a moderate and pragmatic approach. Instead of demonising the immigrant, she has called for the assimilation of these immigrants into the Dutch culture. Integration above intolerance; reason over racial prejudice. Imagine how glorious it would be if the high-profile South Africans littering twitter with their personal opinions could apply some of Hirsi Ali’s common sense.
If South Africans are serious about creating a society entrenched in our constitutional principles, then more people should start defending the ideologies which promote progress, and reject the ideas which divide us and devalue segments of our society. Divisive rhetoric, as expressed by Simphiwe Dana, impedes nation building and unity, and ought to be shunned by more South Africans.
This is awesome, Thorne! What a brilliant piece, I applaud you…as an African!!
Awesome piece Thorne!
Sadly it seems some of the Africans will never be happy till Africa is dark again, and I am not referring to Eskom.
I think it’s important for white South Africans to pause a little before becoming “outraged” over issues of African identity. To at least acknowledge that a black South African’s irritation at white South Africans’ claim to Africaness does not come from the same place as rightwing anti-immigrant Euro racism. Comparing Dana’s views to the European Far-Right is misguided and offensive. It totally ignores the differing power relationship involved in these two scenarios. Whites in SA, although a minority, are still for the most part economically privileged. Not so for most immigrant minorities in Europe.
For more than 400 years in this country, anything perceived to be African was denigrated to the extreme. Only when it became safe and hip to identify as African, did most whites wish to identify as such. We can’t expect black South Africans to be all that enthused about our sudden awakening.
Perhaps a better way to talk about this issue is by focussing on hybridity. Quite literally many, if not most, South African are genealogically mixed in some way. But more importantly, in my opinion, is cultural hybridity. We’ve all developed hybrid identities from which it is impossible to separate the purely African from the purely European or Asian or whatnot. This essay uses a variation of the reverse racism argument which can only fan the flames of essentialism.