Blacks are cowards in the hot 'I am an African' debate

THERE is a big noisy debate in the newspapers about who among the inhabitants of our country is an African.

This whole issue was started by Thabo Mbeki with his lyrical "I am an African" speech. The so-called debate itself is tired and boring, to say the least. I am, however, fascinated by the silence that permeates such noisy claims.

Why would anyone proclaim that they are African? Who cares? A friend, after Mbeki's poetic delivery, said imagine a frog declaring, "I'm a frog!" to other frogs. He said fellow frogs were likely to burst out laughing and conclude that Mr "I am a frog" is a little not-right upstairs.

Of course, Mbeki's piece gave away the right of blacks to claim exclusive rights to "African". Is it not ironic that this black continent was not even named by blacks?

Let me try making obvious what the unsaid prize, which is at stake in this debate, is. Generally it's the blacks who proclaim they are African, but they don't say why this is important or what problem would be solved by their declarations.

When whites enter the debate and claim that they too are African, blacks get angry and shout that whites are not African! It's not always clear on what grounds they want to exclude whites and the argument can get as ridiculous as "Africa is for darker skinned people".

Increasingly, so-called coloureds and Indians have also entered the debate, only to criticise black Africans for being exclusionary and nationalist. Again, the underlying interests are not put on the table. I think blacks are cowards in this debate.

They are afraid to say what the real issue is because they don't want to be accused of being racist. What they don't know is that "blacks can't be racist!" as I have argued in my publication, New Frank Talk.

Blacks insist that they are Africans because they feel their white counterparts are continuing to enjoy the benefits of colonialism and apartheid.

But the issue of being identified as African is mostly a concern for the black middle-class person, who hopes to get a BEE deal, wants a promotion or to win tenders.

But they are incapable of saying to whites: "Because of slavery, colonialism and apartheid, you have defined yourself as enemies of black people and we want reparations and justice".

Whites, on the other hand, insist on being African precisely because that absolves their historical role on enslaving and colonising blacks.

It also helps in naturalising the wealth and privileges they derived from the oppression of blacks.

The likes of AfriForum, who are against Affirmative Action and Employment Equity, want an inclusive African definition to subvert these programmes and avoid accounting for historical injustices.

After all, if we are all Africans, then we can't really raise issues of reparations and even demand the land back.

On the other hand, the Indians and coloureds feel such a debate is also going to leave them outside from the benefits of the post-1994 get-rich-quick schemes.

The question of who is an African must become a debate about historical injustices and reparations for all and less about post-1994 elite interests.

lMngxitama will give a talk titled "Egypt: was the revolution lost? Lessons for post-1994 South Africa" on March 5 at 2pm, Roots Restaurant in Central Western Jabavu.