Leon Lemmer: Die kwessie van blankheid

Aan universiteite in Amerika word daar dikwels formele kursusse oor voorheen benadeeldes aangebied, bekend as bv Black Studies, Hispanic Studies, Women’s Studies, Gender Studies, ens. Die vraag het toe ontstaan: Waarom nie ook White Studies nie? Blankes as groep het daarna in uitsonderlike gevalle die onderwerp van kursusse geword. Maar daar is die gewilde persepsie dat blankes deurgaans bevoordeel en nooit benadeel is nie. Anders as in die geval van die geykte benadeeldes, wat deurgaans so goed moontlik in eersgenoemde kursusse voorgestel word, word die teenoorgestelde in White Studies gedoen. Daarin word blankes verdoem deur hulle voor te hou as uitbuiters, rassiste, ens; feitlik alles wat sleg is.

Multi-benadeeldheid is ‘n bekende verskynsel. ‘n Mens verwerf die status van dubbele benadeling as jy bv swart en ‘n vrou of ‘n vrou en lesbies is. ‘n Lesbiese swart vrou word as drievoudig benadeeld beskou. Sy kan haar multi-benadeelheid uitbrei deur ook ‘n gestremde te wees. Uit die poel van benadeeldes kom die hoofwoorvoerders in White Studies. Sonder om enige groep in sy geheel te probeer diskrediteer, moet ek noem dat swartes en vroue, dikwels lesbiërs, in baie gevalle as die prominentste “kenners” van die blankedom ontpop het. In hierdie verband wil ek nog skryf oor bv Gloria Wekker, ‘n Afro-Surinamer wat haar in Nederland tuisgemaak het en die plaaslike blankes mateloos veroordeel. Maar voor dit sal ek oor Suriname moet skryf. Wat my aan die tema van vandag se rubriek laat dink het, is Helen Zille se outobiografie (Praag 13 Mei), waarin die kwessie van witheid aangespreek word. Ek skryf oor Zille se opmerkings hier onder, maar ek wil eers oor ‘n ander boek kommentaar lewer.

Unveiling whiteness

Dit is vir my belangrik om ‘n boek deeglik van voor tot agter te lees voordat ek dit in ‘n rubriek bespreek. Dit is seker die beste manier waarop ‘n mens vertroue in wat jy skryf by lesers kan wek. Trouens, ek vind dit onmoontlik om selfs te begin skryf voordat ek ‘n boek klaar gelees het. ‘n Mens moet liefs die geheelbeeld hê voordat jy jou in die vaarwater van kommentaarlewering begewe. Maar vandag gaan ek my aanmatig om ‘n uitsondering te maak. Ek skryf oor die boek, Unveiling whiteness in the twenty-first century: Global manifestations, transdisciplinary interventions (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2015, 314p; Amazon Kindle $113,99) met Veronica Watson, Deirdre Howard-Wagner en Lisa Spanierman as redakteurs. Let daarop dat dit drie vroue is. Ek kan dit gewoon nie bekostig om hierdie boek te koop nie. As ‘n mens nie ryk is nie moet jy probeer om slim te wees. Amazon stel potensiële kopers in staat om ‘n voorsmakie van die boek gratis te bekom. Die hele inleiding is aan my gestuur. Daarin gee die redakteurs ‘n omvattende opsomming van die inhoud. In daardie inleiding word meer as genoeg kwytgeraak om my tot kommentaarlewering aan te spoor. Die redakteurs se opsomming dien as ‘n soort waarborg dat ek die opvattings van die individuele outeurs nie wanvoorstel nie.

Die redakteurs val weg deur op hulle professionaliteit en kritiese ingesteldheid te roem, met as doel “resisting white supremacy, neocolonialism, and neoliberalism” (Kindle 69). Die boek is gebaseer op die “1st Global Conference: Images of Whiteness, Exploring Critical Issues,” wat in 2011 in Oxford gehou is (97). “That meeting was outstanding in its creation of a space where critical conversations about whiteness could happen in a professional environment free of hierarchy and competition” (69). Dit gaan dus om die uitlewing van gelykheid en besinning oor “critical whiteness” (79). “We wanted to better understand and resist the constructs of repressive, exploitative whiteness in our various national contexts, professional and educational locations, and as part of our personal critical praxes” (101). “This book builds on the long, rich tradition of intellectual work on whiteness that renders whiteness visible, a marking that is a necessary precursor to dismantling it” (117).

In die hedendaagse wêreld mag ‘n mens nie die werklikheid van bv swartheid, feminisme en homoseksualiteit, insluitende die smart wat hierdie groepe na bewering aangedoen is, bevraagteken nie. Witheid word heeltemal anders benader. Dit word beskou as ‘n “konstruk”, ‘n saamgeflanste of uitgedinkte begrip wat met wortel en tak uitgeroei moet word: “the oppressive constructions of whiteness as a racial and social identity historically as well as into our contemporary moment” (117). Dit is nie net Suid-Afrikaanse blankes wat hulle dermate midde in ‘n herfs van onvergenoegd bevind omdat hulle voortbestaan bedreig word nie. Dit is ‘n wêreldwye verskynsel; of dit moet sodanig word volgens hierdie anti-blanke aktiviste.

“This collection comes together in the post 9/11, post-global financial crisis era, during the second term of the first Black US president, and after a rash of European xenophobic and white supremacist incidents internationally, including the gains of far-right political parties in governments across Europe” (149). Dus, Barack Obama word sonder meer as goed beskou en regse blanke Europeërs wat hulle identiteit wil behou, word veroordeel. Hierdie wittes bied immers weerstand teen die verbrokkeling van die blankedom en sodanige verset word as ongewens, as “retreats from social justice” (155), beskou.

Die outeurs van die bundel en ander linkses, soos die swartmag-aktivis, WEB du Bois (1868-1963), en die swart skryfster, Toni Morrison (gebore in 1931), “provided critical approaches that have exposed whiteness as a social construction and contested identity, and demonstrated the ways that whiteness seduces and rewards, becoming the subject of fantasy and desire … the ways that white violence is naturalized and made visible in the world” (123). Die oorbeklemtoning van hoe krities hierdie mense is, dui myns insiens daarop dat krities vir hulle die betekenis van anti-wit het. Daardie anti-blanke gesindheid kan kwalik iets anders as doodgewone rassisme wees.

Die professionaliteit en intellektualiteit van hierdie “geleerdes” word ook oorbeklemtoon. “Focusing on the work of African American intellectuals, Veronica Watson continues the exploration of the vexed and troubling maneuvers of whiteness to maintain dominance in the multicultural United States … this work is continued by scholars who are seeking to disrupt whiteness through a similar attention to discourse, language, and the psychology and structural mechanisms that both enable the reproduction of and reveal the irreconcilable schisms within whiteness” (123). Toegepas op Suid-Afrika kan ‘n mens seker sê dat waar bv installasies voorheen gesaboteer is, die tyd aangebreek het om witheid, dus blankes, as sodanig individueel en groepgewys te laat verbrokkel.

By blankes is daar glo “anxiety and guilt arising from developing awareness of the pervasiveness of racism” (128). In die boek word daar geskryf oor “white dominance”, “white fear/paranoia”, “racial melancholia” en “white guilt/shame” (133, 138); almal negatiewe kenmerke. “Deirdre Howard-Wagner’s work exposes how in the 21st century whiteness is reinvented and sustained via neoliberalism** … liberalism* in its historical and contemporary variations reinscribes white dominance through the politics of rights, recognition, and multiculturalism in various contexts” (143). Hierdie aandrang op die erkenning van menseregte en multikulturaliteit is die maaksels van diegene wat na bewering voorheen benadeel is. Nou kla hierdie selfde elemente dat blankes hierdie skeppings teen hulle gebruik.

[* “Liberalism: political and social theory that supports representative government, freedom of the press, speech, and worship, the abolition of class privileges, the use of state resources to protect the welfare of the individual, and international free trade” (Collins World Enyclopedia, 2003, p 535).
** “Neoliberalism refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of the 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire*** economic liberalism. These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privitization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society” (Wikipedia).
*** “Laissez faire (French ‘let alone’) theory that the state should not intervere in economic affairs, except to break up a monopoly” (Collins World Encyclopedia, 2003, p 516).]

“When faced with a slate of regressive laws and statutes in settler nations that undermine and fail to recognize group cultural identity as legitimate; when confronted with daily attacks on people of color in the United States, denying us and them human rights and the right of life; when the pain and suffering of racialized people is ridiculed in offensive cartoons, cakes* and racially themed parties; all in nations and among people who purport to be inclusive, democratic, and ‘color-blind,’ then a single approach [the tools of the social sciences] to dismantling white supremacy is obviously inadequate. Work is needed on multiple fronts using a variety of analytical tools and humanistic efforts simultaneously” (161). Dit lyk na ‘n emosionele uitbarsting pleks van ‘n wetenskaplike of rasionele siening. Die insluiting van “humanistic efforts” maak die deur wyd oop vir instinktiewe, irrasionele en emosionele bevindings en uitlatings. Sou blanke Suid-Afrikaners erkenning van hulle “group cultural identity” uit hierdie oord kry? Ek dink nie so nie. [* “The caricatured African figure that was served as a cake at a cultural event in Sweden in April 2012” (265). Die geringste insident wat enige plek ter wêreld voorkom, word misbruik as ammunisie in anti-wit veldtogte.]

“The racialization of social and political spaces is a key theme running through this collection … we have witnessed a rolling back of rights and a ramping up to right-wing rhetoric that justifies those retreats by redefining the meanings of ‘recognition’ and ‘equity.’ … Since the late 20th century, those terms have increasingly been framed through a conservative, color-blind ideology that seeks to ignore the historic and continuing embedding of racism and colonialism at the structural and institutional levels of society” (172). Wat hier en in die vorige paragraaf deur die redakteurs beweer word, doen werklikheidsvreemd aan. Die algemene tendens veral in die Weste is myns insiens steeds om voorkeur aan nie-wit bo wit belange te gee, al is dit die waarheid dat ons gelukkig toenemend blanke weerstand teen die blatante benadeling van wittes waarneem.

“Decisions to ignore ‘race’ simply serve to reinforce the continuing exploitation of racialized people and to enable the persistence of colonial hierarchies around the globe” (177). Dit lyk asof die aktivistiese redakteurs nie argumente het om hulle anti-blanke standpunt te onderskraag nie en dus maar tot suiwere retoriek oorgaan. Dit is in werklikheid veral in swart geledere, bv in Amerika, en ook in bruin geledere, bv in Suid-Afrika, dat daar enersyds aangedring word op die andersheid van swartes (insluitende bruines), soos vervat in swart bewussyn en mag, en andersyds terselfdertyd aangedring word op kleurloosheid, nie-rassigheid; dat almal eintlik maar eenders is as gelyke lede van die menseras. Omdat die werklikheid nie daardie gelykheid en eendersheid weerspieël nie, kry blankes die skuld vir die ongelykheid en andersheid weens bv slawerny, kolonialisme, imperialisme en rassesegregasie.

“By unveiling whiteness in different nation-state contexts alongside one another, the authors reveal the striking similarities of white supremacy and white exceptionalism across Western nations in the 21st century, such as the backlashes against affirmative action in Arizona and multiculturalism in Canada and Australia. Together, the chapters demonstrate there has been a reclaiming of the dominant national space as a white homogenous space in Sweden, Canada, and Australia, three of the most progressive Western nation-states in the early 1990s in regard to anti-discrimination and multicultural agendas, exposing the interconnections between liberalism and whiteness. Racial color-blindness, as so many of the papers in this collection effectively demonstrate, is a perversion of the goal to create just and equitable societies where the color of one’s skin does not overdetermine the trajectory of one’s life chances. Neoliberal color-blind racial ideology simply repackage whiteness and colonialism such that the effects of that structuring are not immediately seen as contradictory to the touted aims of liberal humanity” (177).

Onderliggend aan hierdie soort redenasie is die standpunt dat blankes nie hulle posisie en belange mag beveilig nie; dat wittes moet terugsit en toelaat dat nie-wittes oor hulle loop en hulle uiteindelik ontneem van alles waaraan hulle waarde heg. Oor die Groot Trek en daarna word telkens aangevoer dat die Boere nie laer mag trek en hulleself mag verdedig nie. Daarvolgens het die swartes nie net eiendomsreg (maar opvallend sonder kaart en transport) op die grond (die Suid-Afrikaase bodem) nie, maar ook die hoë morele grond in pag en dus die reg om die blankes te beroof en selfs uit te moor. Tydens apartheid is die blanke bewind om dieselfde rede male sonder tal verkwalik as hy dit durf waag het om die land en blanke kiesers se belange te beskerm. Blanke ongevalle wat weens terreuraanvalle gely is, is geloof. As die blanke bewind in hierdie oorlogsituasie sukses behaal en terroriste gedood het, is dit as moord bestempel.

“Whiteness has always functioned as a sort of imagined community … whiteness is busily about the business of defining that imagined community according to race, ethnicity, and income, making full citizenship and preservation of human rights dependent on whiteness and wealth, or whiteness and a narrowly defined citizenship” (187). “Whiteness operates as a governing regime in various national contexts in the 21st century, connecting contemporary manifestations of whiteness to historical and deeply embedded racialized practices of white supremacy. In referring to governing through whiteness, the chapters demonstrate how white supremacy is reproduced as new and contemporary manifestations of racialized state building” (207). As blankes beter as ander groepe vaar, bv finansieel of ekonomies, dui dit noodwendig op selfbevoordeling? En geskied dit noodwendig ten koste van nie-wittes? Kan nie-wittes danksy blanke prestasie nie ten minste soms ook mede-bevoordeeldes wees nie?

Dit is heeltemal moontlik dat wat Westerse beskawing genoem word, bv hulle werksetiek, beter as ander soorte gedrag by hedendaagse omstandighede aangepas is en gevolglik meer suksesvol is. Die stryd wat tans in veral nie-wit geledere teen alles wat as Westers of blank beskou word, gevoer word, is misplaas. Westerse beskawing kan nie en behoort nie as uitsluitlik Westers beskou te word nie, maar veel eerder as gedragpatrone, asook ideële en konkrete uitkomste, wat oor eeue ‘n historiese evolusie deurloop het. Daar is gevorder van bv die uitgeholde boomstomp as voertuig op water tot die spuitvliegtuig en van die konka tot die selfoon. Lees bv George Reisman se verduideliking van hoe Westerse beskawing uit ander beskawings ontwikkel het (Praag 21.11.2015).

“Engaging critical whiteness studies as a way of explaining cyberhate and the voice of white supremacy on the Internet, [Adela] Fofiu reveals the disturbing ability of these apocalyptic narratives to spread and amplify the discourse of white fear in mainstream media outlets around the globe” (197). Die sosiale en ander inligtingsmedia kan en word deur sowel wittes as nie-wittes voorbeeldig of skandalig gebruik. As blankes bv vrese in hulle omdra, kan dit kwalik misplaas wees as hulle uitdrukking daaraan gee en dan poog om die redes daarvoor na te speur.

Die Australiër, Deirdre Howard-Wagner, “evidences how the neoliberal reframing of multiculturalism worked to recenter whiteness as the national identity and to unravel the ground upon which Aboriginal people could collectively agitate for political and economic parity within Australia” (217). In Australië word baie gedoen om die nasate van die oorspronklike inheemse inwoners tot hulle reg te laat kom. ‘n Reg wat wit Australiërs nie ontsê moet word nie, is besinning oor die soort nasie wat hulle wil wees.

Wat die outeurs van hierdie bundel verlang is glo “a more progressive and liberatory whiteness” (238), dus ‘n opset waarin nie-wittes voorspoediger en gelukkiger sal wees. Dit kan egter ten koste van sowel die voorspoed as geluk van die blankes geskied. Volgens Emma Lind is daar glo “the necessity for whiteness scholars to ‘move beyond a coherent, singular sense of self’ toward a sense of self as multiply positioned and variously enmeshed in ‘broader social and political structures that conspire to produce racism and white privilege’” (254). Dit is myns insiens tog duidelik wat met hierdie swak geformuleerde sin bedoel word: witheid, oftewel die blankedom, moet tot integrasionistiese multikulturaliteit verbrokkel word.

Die outeurs van die laaste hoofstuk, waaronder Veronica Watson, “posit the need to recognize the ‘trauma of perpetrator’ as part of the collective identity of whiteness … they argue that understanding whiteness as trauma helps to account for the ‘closing down’ of whiteness – the inability and unwillingness of whiteness to engage the pain of people of color; the retreat from progressive policies and politics that start from the acknowledgement of the humanity of all persons; and the refusal of whiteness to create new paradigms of being for itself that are not based on hierarchy, exclusion, and exploitation” (254). Die blankes word hiermee teen wil en dank tot die skuldiges of oortreders gestereotipeer. Verwondheid weens hulle beweerde wandade en misdade word valslik as hulle selfverworwe identiteit voorgehou.

“In all of this work we are reminded that whiteness is an active participant in and is central to systems of domination. White cultural practices as well as individual and institutional operations are the omnipresent norm and signal the production and reproduction of white dominance, normativity, and privilege. In our effort to understand the ‘turn’ that whiteness has taken in the 21st century – which is more a desperate return to the violence, political repressiveness, and xenophobia of its historical past – we are pursuing a fundamental question: Can whiteness remake itself based on a full acknowledgement of its oppressive history and a commitment to human recognition and connection going forward?” (259). ‘n Kort antwoord hierop is: ‘n Eensydige wanvoorstelling van blankes – deur net negatiewe aspekte uit te lig – word aangebied. ‘n Meer ewewigtige en objektiewer siening van blankes is nodig. Dan sal dit duidelik word dat daar minder opsigte is waarin blankes moet verbeter.

Not without a fight

Een van die betreklik min – in vergelyking met Amerika – plaaslike bronne waarin die kwessie van witheid aangespreek word, is die voorlaaste hoofstuk van Helen Zille se outobiografie, Not without a fight (Cape Town: Penguin Books, 2016, 560p, R380; Amazon Kindle $13,67). Zille doen dit na aanleiding van die studente-onrus waarvolgens universiteite gedekoloniseer en leerplanne geafrikaniseer moet word. Haar opmerkings oor die kwessie van witheid getuig van ingeligtheid en is sprekend van groter ewewigtigheid as wat sy oor sommige ander sake in haar outobiografie openbaar. “‘Whiteness’ [is] the face of twentieth-century colonialism. Decolonisation is the essential corollary. Taken to its logical conclusion, this line of thinking would define whites as alien in South Africa and its institutions” (Kindle 10309). Na meer as 365 jaar het blankes daarvolgens steeds die status van setlaars, vreemdelinge, uitlanders en inkommers; as mense wat nie hier hoort nie. Swartes, daarenteen, word sonder meer as inheemses beskou al het hulle oorspronklik van elders in Afrika gekom en al word hulle geledere steeds deurlopend en al hoe meer oorweldigend met inkommers aangevul.

“I learnt that the concept of whiteness is rooted in critical race theory, a line of thinking which, ironically, comes directly from the United States of America, which supporters of the #MustFall movement despise as the epicentre of global capitalist imperialism. Critical race theory proceeds from the assumption that ‘whiteness’ is a profound social problem. It is the underlying reason why, in the United States, proportionally more black youngsters are in jail, get poorer average test scores or are more likely to be abandoned by their fathers. The ‘pathology of whiteness’ is closely aligned to the ‘violence of whiteness’, which provides the impetus behind the movement #BlackLivesMatter. Of course black lives matter. But don’t dare suggest that #AllLivesMatter” (10315)

Die oorbeklemtoning van hoe krities hierdie anti-blanke aktiviste is, kamoefleer hulle eensydigheid. “Critical race theory” herinner in hierdie opsig aan “critical theory”, die Frankfurt-skool se hersiening van marxisme. Verder word blankes van gewelddadigheid beskuldig terwyl dit dalk veel eerder kenmerkend van die gedrag van swartes is. Dit is na aanleiding van (misdadige) swartes wat in Amerika deur die polisie gedood is, dat die beweging #BlackLivesMatter geloods is. Die BLM-beweging is ‘n tweeledige miskenning van die waarheid. Eerstens word meer blankes deur swartes vermoor as andersom. Tweedens word baie meer swartes as blankes deur swartes vermoor. Dit is hoogs beledigend om witheid as ‘n patologie, ‘n siekte, te etiketteer. Dit is wat Desmond Tutu en ander bevrydingsteoloë – “race evangelists” genoem (10482) – herhaaldelik gedoen het deur te beweer dat blankes van rassisme, kleurvooroordeel, uitbuiting, immoraliteit, ens, genees moet word.

“Critical race theorists will accuse you of ‘wilful colour-blindness’ and of ‘deliberately taking race out of the conversation’. If a white policeman shoots a black youth, all whites share culpability, but not vice versa. Woe betide anyone who draws a general conclusion about black people on the basis of an individual’s actions. The purpose of critical race theory in South Africa is not to build an inclusive, non-racial society, which many of us thought was the aim of the liberation struggle. It is to entrench race as the prime social marker, the determinant of pain and privilege, victimhood and villainy. Four legs good, two legs bad” (10320). Die laaste sin verwys na George Orwell se roman, Animal farm (1945) (Praag 4.06.2016). Die swart kritici van witheid verkondig dikwels teenstrydighede. Soms wil hulle kleurblindheid hê. Ander kere word die werklikheid van swartheid beklemtoon. Soms word die realiteit van ras ontken. Ander kere is ras ‘n vanselfsprekende element in elkeen se ervaring. In haar outobiografie wys Zille telkens en tereg dubbele standaarde uit. Haar ideaal van ‘n nie-rassige nuwe Suid-Afrika is myns insiens onbereikbaar.

Hierdie anti-blanke aktiviste “resurrects, with a vengeance, the real pathology of divided societies – broad generalisations about entire categories of people based on skin colour, religion, language or ethnicity. It seeks out reasons to promote a new form of social exclusion, based on the sins inherited from previous generations, sins that must constantly be resuscitated in order to reinforce the divisions on which critical race theory feeds. What began in the United States as an attempt to empower a marginalised minority is becoming, in South Africa, a tool to justify the unbridled hegemony of a racial majority, to classify and pathologise minorities on the basis of racial generalisations, and so discount and delegitimise any contribution they try to make. Individuals aren’t evaluated in their own right, on their own merits, or their contribution to society. They are merely a function of their colour” (10325). Dit is waarom bv kolonialisme en apartheid as net sleg voorgestel word. Dit is ook waarom individuele meriete by blankes grootliks ontken en deur swartes se groepverwantskap, naamlik ras, oordonder word.

“Critical race theory rejects non-racialism because it supposedly denies the ‘centrality of black pain’. The #RhodesMust Fall mission statement dismisses the South African constitution’s conception of racism as ‘fundamentally racist because it presupposes that racism is a universal experience, thus normalising the suffering of those who actually experience racism’. In other words, only whites can be racist and only blacks can experience the suffering of racism. That is why ‘whiteness’ is the problem that must be eradicated” (10331), In haar outobiografie lewer Zille telkens bewys van haar onkritiese verknogtheid aan die Grondwet. Sy toon ook aan in watter ruime mate swartes die sosiale media misbruik as uitlaatklep vir swart rassisme. Maar die Menseregtekommissie is skynbaar feitlik uitsluitlik ingestel op die geringste sweem van blanke rassisme.

“Some [critical race theorists] argue that whites must acknowledge that their very presence in the country is shameful and destructive, and that the only way to deal with this is silent self-flagellation” (10336). Hoeveel keer moes ons nie al van mense soos Max du Preez aanhoor dat blankes stil moet bly en luister na wat swartes te sê het nie? Dít terwyl die maxiste self voortgaan om hulle woordryke opinies te lug.

Zille stel hierna ander gewilde hedendaagse Amerikaanse politieke frase bekend, bv “racial micro-aggression” (10336). Dit is wanneer ‘n skynbaar geringe openbare voorval aanstoot aan bv swartes of vroue gee, bv as ‘n swart afgevaardigde by ‘n byeenkoms verkeerdelik as ‘n kelner (10342) of ‘n vrou pleks van as baas as ‘n sekrekaresse aangesien word (10347). Hierdie twee mense se rolle is onbewustelik gestereotipeer. Dit is sprekende voorbeelde van die tirannie wat sosiaal uitgeoefen word deur diegene wat op die status van voorheen benadeeldheid aanspraak maak. Maar waarom ‘n mikro-insident tot ‘n makro-probleem opblaas? Ook hier is daar dubbele standaarde. In die jare sewentig het Kalie Heese vertel hoe hy besig met huistakies was, bv die skoonmaak van geute, toe iemand by sy huis aankom en vra waar professor Heese is. Kalie het beduie dat die besoeker by die voordeur moet ingaan. (Daardie jare het buitedeure nog oop gestaan.) Kalie is toe by die agterdeur in en het die besoeker te woord gestaan. By Kalie as blanke man was daar geen sprake van sensitiwiteit oor mikro-aggressie nie, al is hy aangesien vir minder as wat hy was. Hy het die insident eerder geniet.

Nog ‘n Amerikaanse mode-frase is “the phenomenology of personal experience.” Dit is wanneer sogenaamde voorheen benadeeldes hulle eie ervaring as onbetwisbare evangelie voorhou pleks van ‘n saak te beredeneer. “You, yourself, constitute a random, stratified research sample of one, from which to draw general conclusions about ‘blackness’ and ‘whiteness’” (10424). Wanelisa Xaba, ‘n student aan die Universiteit Kaapstad, word soos volg aangehaal: “White people don’t see you because seeing you means seeing themselves and their illegitimate existence in this country. To recognise you means to recognise that their existence in this country is a direct result of psychological and cultural genocides, looting and the killing of our ancestors. Every material and immaterial privilege that white South Africa enjoys today has centuries of blood dripping from it, which they cover with denial. To recognise you means that they understand that their very presence in this country is violence to the generations of African people who suffer intergenerational trauma inflicted from colonisation until now” (10352). Is Xaba se uitlatings nie ‘n sprekende voorbeeld van swart rassisme nie? Wa Azania het in Franschhoek by ‘n literêre byeenkoms gepraat van die “normalisation of violence, exclusion and the intellectual onslaught on black bodies” (10383), soos na bewering deur blankes gepleeg. Hierdie oorbeklemtoning van beweerde blanke gewelddadigheid het heel moontlik sy oorsprong in Frantz Fanon (1925-1961) se geskrifte.

Dit bring my by nog ‘n Amerikaanse politieke frase: die “commoditisation of black pain.” Xolela Mangcu, ‘n sosiologie-dosent aan die Universiteit Kaapstad, praat van die “suffocating whiteness” aan daardie universiteit (10383). Die filosoof David Benatar was al by verskeie geleenthede in pengevegte met hom betrokke waarin Mangcu sleg tweede gekom het (Praag 3.10.2015). Die subjektiewe ervaring van pyn by swartes is inderdaad tot ‘n hulpbron met die oog op onregverdigbare bevoordeling verhef. Mangcu “copes with his situation by going beyond merely commoditising black pain. He actually commercialises it” (10389). Laasgenoemde sin verwys na die buitensporige mate waarin hy deur wit liberaliste finansieel bevoordeel is; mense vir wie hy geen goeie woord het nie.

“Critical race theory, in its South African variegation, has become a fig leaf for scapegoating … Blaming ‘whiteness’ is no longer peripheral to South Africa’s discourse. It has become mainstream and is even considered ‘progressive’”(10461). Gewoonlik word witheid as sodanig egter nie geblameer nie. Daar word indirek daarna verwys deur apartheid die skuld te gee vir feitlik alles wat in die nuwe Suid-Afrika verkeerd gegaan het. Volgens sommige “‘black’ should remain a proxy for disadvantage when it comes to preferential access to universities, irrespective of an individual’s background, but it would be outrageous to assume that ‘black’ might be used as a proxy, say, for predicting the risk of HIV infection” (10467).

Slot

As daar meer krities en rasioneel oor blankheid besin word en nie so emosioneel en propagandisties soos in die eerste bundel hier bo nie, sal ‘n meer realistiese en ewewigtige siening uitkristalliseer. Dan kan dit vir verskillende rasse en etnisiteite moontlik word om in groter mate harmonieus saam te leef. Daar is gegriefdheid oor blanke uitsonderlikheid/”exceptionalism”, maar dit is ‘n feit dat blankes wêreldwyd buitengewoon gepresteer het en dit steeds doen. Dit geskied meesal/dikwels terwyl hulle lede van ander rasse eerder bevoordeel as benadeel. Die vraag is of ‘n element van jaloesie nie dikwels ‘n rol speel en dit uitdrukking in anti-blanke sentiment vind nie. Sou dit nie beter wees om die voorbeeld wat blankes stel in ten minste sommige opsigte as navolgenswaardige voorbeeld of riglyn te aanvaar pleks van blankes holus-bolus te veroordeel en weg te wens nie?

Die fundamentele fout wat in White Studies gemaak word, is om blankes as sleg, verkeerdelik bevoorreg, gewelddadig, ens, te stereotipeer en daarom hulle uitwissing te bepleit. Grondliggend is daar by diesulkes die voorkeur vir ‘n enkele ras, die menseras, “humanity”, ‘n kookpot waarin al die verskillende rasse en kulture moet verdwyn, met dikwels as addisionele begeerte dat daar ‘n enkele wêreldregering moet wees. Universele eendersheid en gelykheid wat ras en kultuur betref, word as voorvereistes vir die skepping van ‘n utopie, ‘n ideale verblyfoord, voorgehou. ‘n Meer realistiese siening sal hierdie utopie as ‘n werklikheidsvreemde droombeeld ontmasker. Anti-blanke aktiviste verkies egter daardie droom bo die aanvaarding van blankes as norm.