The Prism of “Race”
By Mr. Melvin Esau, Contributing Writer
Foreword
My understanding of “race” stems from my participation in the struggle for liberation of the working-class people in South Africa, the studies we did in the 1980s at the South African Council for Higher Education (SACHED), and has its foundation in biblical scripture, that all people were created as equals in the image of God.
Using this as my premise, one asks: Where did the concept of race originate, and what was its purpose?
To unpack this, I would like to use the status of “Afrikaners,” the current issue in South Africa.
In this, I’m leaning heavily on the writing and teachings of my mentor and comrade, the late Professor Neville Alexander, a person I personally knew and struggled alongside in advocating for socialism as an alternative to capitalism.
Introduction
The conventional ruling class wisdom concerning African politics can be summarized as follows:
After the defeat of the Boer Republic in 1902 and the establishment of the Union of South Africa in 1910, politics in South Africa primarily revolved around the struggle for parliamentary hegemony between predominantly English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking white groups, regardless of their social class or aspirations. Only in times of economic crisis, such as the inter-war period and the Great Depression, did a truce between the two groups operate.
In this struggle, the position of Black people in the country was analogous to that of a factory’s workforce (labor). The blacks were seen as the main source of unskilled and semi-skilled labor, enterprise, and capital. Land was, until approximately 1948, the critical factor around which a White-Black conflict could arise. However, the monopoly of power enjoyed by whites ruled out every possibility of the inarticulate, disorganized, and disunited blacks constituting any serious threat to the status quo.
One Azania, One Nation, No Sizwe, Zed Pres 1979
The ideological explanation for what is described above is that whites, because of their superior civilization and their European heritage, were entitled to rule. It was their duty to help Blacks attain a similar standard of sophistication, but until there had been done, blacks in general would have to rest content with their inferior status. On this, all spokesmen of the ruling class, both English and Afrikaans-speaking, were united.
After Sharpeville in 1960 and the creation of the White Republic of South Africa, in the National Party’s view, there was a struggle between two white ‘nations’ and various black ‘nations.’ The former view found its clearest expression in an address to the United Nations Security Council by Mr. RF Botha, then the South African ambassador to the UN. In it, he said, “The problem in South Africa is basically not one of race, but of nationalism, which is a worldwide problem.” There is white nationalism, and there are several black nationalisms. My government’s principal aim is to make it possible for each nation—Black and White, to achieve its full potential. (The Star, 2 June 1979)
This statement represents the culmination of a process that began in the early 1930s, when Afrikaans-speaking white intellectuals started to formulate a theory of nationality, now known as Afrikaans nationalism. What has happened is that, since the mid-1950s, the essentials of this theory have been generalized and applied to blacks to legitimize the strategy of Bantustans.
I would like to focus on the origins and development of the Afrikaner national movement. The descendants of predominantly Dutch-speaking colonists who migrated from the Cape Colony between 1834 and 1840 (during the notorious Great Trek) were essentially subsistence farmers with very tenuous links to the Cape and thus to the world market.
Very few were families of considerable means, as judged by the colony’s standards. Only after the dispossession of most of the indigenous tribes and in response to the increasing demand for Manchester goods in all parts of the world, did these farmers, like their counterparts in Australia and in New Zealand become important suppliers of wool and hides.
Afrikaners at the time of mineral discoveries
It was British imperialist greed that immediately created the conditions that led to the rise of Afrikaner sectionalism. The Afrikaans-speaking white population of the Cape Colony’s situation was more complex, ever since the last days of the Dutch East India Company. The formation of pro-government and anti-government factions in both the Western and Eastern provinces was a major contribution to this. The final British occupation of the colony in 1806 gave rise to the pro-British (“Anglo men”) and the anti-British (“nationals”). The revolt between these factions in the Eastern Cape eventually led to the Great Trek, which also led to the alienation of the Republicans from the Localists in the Cape Colony. They did not assert themselves politically, despite the Afrikaans-speaking section comprising approximately three-quarters of the population. They only did so after the colony was granted responsible government in 1872.
The anti-British sentiments and propaganda emanating from the Republics found a ready ear among considerable numbers of Afrikaans-speaking whites in the Cape Colony. These events gave rise to the first full grown Afrikaner language movement in the Western Cape. Afrikaans, as spoken by the majority of Dutch, remained the written language of the courts, schools, and the church. Due to this, a dedicated group of Afrikaans-speaking intellectuals, under the leadership of the Rev. SJ Du Toit, established the Genootskap van Regte Afrikaans (the Association for True Afrikaans) in Paarl in 1876. The Genootskap advocated for the written language and for fostering a sense of national unity among Afrikaners under the slogan: “Our language, our nation, our country.”
THE AFRIKANER BOND
This was a political association of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois white (predominantly Afrikaans-speaking)farmers covering the whole of South Africa. The Rev. SJ Du Toit and JH Hofweyer founded it. Their initial struggle was for equal status for Afrikaans with English as the official language in the Cape Colony. Their strategic opening was to challenge the elusive imperialist control of the Cape. The major factor the Afrikaner Bond agreed on was the need to eliminate or at least reduce the stranglehold of British banks on the South African economy. The anti-British struggle of the Boer Republic, following the discovery of the mineral deposits, was the immediate reason for the overt politicization of the Boeren Beskermings Vereeniging and the language movement. This program was the source of the political theory and practice of Afrikaner sectionalism. The solid bourgeois foundation largely emerged from the Rev. SJ Du Toit’s original proposal for the establishment of the organization, circulated on 20 June 1879.
Point 3 of this proposal reads as follows: An Afrikaner Bond, which fosters the three interests of our land and of all parties and prevents the sacrifice of Africa’s interests to England or those of the Farmer to the Merchant, and point 6 states:
An Afrikaner Bond that develops Trade and Industry for the benefit of the land, and not to fill the pockets of speculators, which above all does not allow our money market to be dominated by English banks, which will develop factories as soon as the opportunity arises. (See TRH Davenport, The Afrikaner Bond, pg. 35-36.)
This forces us to address the question of the Afrikaner nation for two important reasons:
- It is necessary to understand how the Afrikaans-speaking petty bourgeois and aspirant bourgeois attempted to structure and explain their nurturing of Afrikaner sectionalism.
- It is necessary to establish the continuity that exists between the theories of nationality presented by these intellectuals and the subsequent theory of the nation, in which it emerged at the same time,showing how the development of capitalism made necessary and possible the application of this theory to the black wage-earner and other laboring people. It must be demonstrated that strategic discontinuity at the political level is not accomplished by ideological-theoretical discontinuity. In Diedrich’s book Nationalism, Lewensbeskouing en sy Verhouding met Internasionalisme (Nationalisms a View of Life and Its Relationship to Internationalism), published in the 1930s, it is stated that “Foruman nature is not a mere fact, but a task, a calling, an idea…Mankind is never completely himself…he must always conquer himself to remain himself, more and more overcome himself to come to that which he is not yet, but which he ought to be. (Page 157)
In fact, Dietrich posited the nation as the essential unit of social analysis. Individuals have existence only insofar as they are taken up into the national whole. The nation is thus the only true reality; true individuals and humanity exist only in and through the nation.
However, it is also clear that the concept of race, despite the dogmatic view held by individuals, is handled very flexibly. Suffice it to say that the claim of some supra-historical a prior unity of Afrikaners is as follows as all other claims of the same kind. Still, it is essential to emphasize that, as guides to action and ideological instruments, these “theories” must be taken seriously and rebuked for what they are: myths. As taken from Calvinist theology, class cleavage is irrelevant for social action; this is a common ideological vision for all Afrikaners. The stance united them into a much broader social unity. It is obvious, yet equally needs constant reiteration, that Afrikaner nationalist ideology developed historically as a response to social change and is not an immutable weltanschauung. A shifting class alliance has always articulated Afrikaner nationalism.
LIBERAL THEORIES OF THE NATION
In the period before 1960, all representatives of the ruling class were united on the proposition that parliamentary power was essentially the preserve of whites. Since the Act of Union in 1910 clearly prohibited blacks from sitting in parliament and since the electorate was composed overwhelmingly of white’ workers and farmers, no political party or person with parliamentary pretensions could publicly advocate the inclusion of black people in the government of the country. General Smuts and Botha, as well as the Hofmeyer liberals who inherited their mantle, were firmly committed to the imperialist perspective. They were not at all concerned with fostering the development of an independent urban (native) bourgeoisie; instead, they believed that the Empire was one and that within it, the normal class struggles and class reconciliations of European capitalist societies should be allowed to play themselves out.
In the words of General Smuts: The entire meaning of ‘union’ in South Africa is this. We are going to create a nation, which will be of a composite character, including Dutch, German, English, and Jewish, and whatever white nationality seeks refuge in this land can combine. (The Field of Force, K Hancock, p. 36)
CONCLUSION
I would like to conclude with the following observations:
Given the historical case study provided, it is fundamental that they need a political solution rather than a humanitarian one. It is also evident that nothing or very little has changed regarding the worldview on the question of the nation and nationality.
If one looks at the challenges people, especially the working class, face around the world. Some of these conflicts are recorded in the Bible, such as those in the Middle East, particularly the conflict between Israel and Palestine, England and Ireland, and the most recent hot potato, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, among others. It is quite clear why imperialists like Donald Trump position themselves the way they do. It is also no surprise that he will lend a sympathetic ear to organizations like the Democratic Alliance, Afri-Forum, and Solidarity, as opposed to the mass genocide in Ukraine and Gaza. Despite the increase in rightwing governments around the world, it is clear that these conflicts are issues of power rather than ones of identity. It is also evident that Capitalism is in a very deep crisis and that more people are looking towards a Socialist solution to alleviate the plight of the working class across the world.
I hope that this paper will serve as a basis for further discussion in the quest for genuine working-class liberation within our church and the communities we serve.
