Leon Lemmer: Barack Obama​ vanuit Afrikanerperspektief

In Suid-Afrika het ons in 1990/1994 die oorskakeling na die veelgeprese demokratiese orde beleef, waarin alle volwasse inwoners stemreg het; dus eintlik ‘n gepeupelkrasie. Ingevolge FW de Klerk se beloftes sou die nuwe Suid-Afrika vry van kommunisme en geweld wees. Pleks daarvan was al die staatshoofde sedert 1994 kommuniste en word die geweld, wat so kenmerkend van die UDF/ANC se “bevrydingstryd” was, tot op hede onverpoos voortgesit. Die mate waarin ons deur ‘n gewelddadige samelewing gekondisioneer word, het duidelik geblyk toe die onlangse studente-onrus en -vandalisme allerweë lof toegeswaai is; nie net deur fundamenteel misleide joernaliste soos Max du Preez nie, maar ook deur die staatshoof, die minister van hoër onderwys en universiteitsrektore.

Die plaaslike politieke opset is sodanig dat die oorweldigende swart meerderheid nooit iets anders as ‘n swart staatshoof sal wil hê nie. Dit spreek boekdele teen die populêre veronderstelling dat swartes noodwendig nie-rassisties is. In Amerika, met die teenoorgestelde bevolkingsamestelling (wit meerderheid, swart minderheid), het die swartes bankvat saam met baie links-liberale blankes ‘n swart president, Barack Obama junior, tot staatshoof verkies. In Suid-Afrika tref ‘n mens ook toenemend die verskynsel aan dat poste wat tradisioneel deur blankes beklee is nou deur swartes gevul word, asof dit ‘n noodwendigheid is.

Die Burger het vir ‘n aantal jare (2006-2011) ‘n “swart” redakteur, Henry Jeffreys, probeer maar hy was te doeltreffend met die vervreemding van die tradisionele, beskaafde, Europeesgeoriënteerde lesers. Die Universiteit Stellenbosch (US) het ‘n “swart” rektor (2007-2014), Russel Botman, aangestel, met katastrofiese gevolge vir Afrikaans en Afrikanerkultuur aan daardie universiteit. Die DA het verplig gevoel om ‘n swart leier, Mmusi Maimane, te verkies. Dit is die soort ding wat vroeër of later in links-liberale geledere gebeur omdat daarop aangedring word dat polities verligtes moet uitleef wat hulle propageer.

In al vier die laasgenoemde gevalle (Obama, Jeffreys, Botman, Maimane) het die aanstelling van ‘n swarte ‘n kulturele breuk met die verlede veroorsaak; selfs ‘n grondige verandering van die institusionele kultuur genoodsaak. Dieselfde neiging kan aan die Universiteit Vrystaat en op die Potchefstroom-kampus van die Noordwes-universiteit waargeneem word, na die aanstelling as rektor van onderskeidelik Jonathan Jansen en Dan Kgwadi. Mense is minder eenders as wat dikwels voorgegee word.

In die geval van godsdiens is daar die neiging om ‘n religie by die behoeftes van ‘n groep en selfs ‘n individu aan te pas. Elkeen glo in meerdere of mindere mate soos dit hom pas omdat dit so ‘n diep persoonlike saak is. Wat die christelike godsdiens betref is daar nie net Rooms-Katolieke en Oosters-Ortodokse en Protestantse christene nie, maar talle variasies binne hierdie groepe. Pinkster- (Pentacostal) en soortgelyke charismatiese groepe, waar daar meer aksie is, het baie gewild geword by mense wat bv graag sing en dans. Die (radikale) aanpassing van nie-inheemse godsdienste kom algemeen by swartes voor. Meer uitsonderlik is dat swartes dit noodsaaklik ag dat soortgelyke aanpassings ook by ander instansies, soos universiteite, gemaak moet word. Pleks van by die aard van ‘n instansie aan te pas, word verlang (kenmerkend, by voorkeur geëis) dat die instansie eerder by swartes moet aanpas/transformeer, met potensieel noodlottige gevolge vir die voortgesette doeltreffende funksionering van die instansie. Dink bv aan die US.

William Washington Bragg het ‘n uitstekende boek oor die ideologiese wortels van Barack Obama geskryf: Obama’s radical roots: Saul Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright, and the others who shaped his worldview (Jefferson Adams Library of American History, 2011, 105p; Amazon Kindle $7,97). Daardie “others” verwys na Charles Ogletree, asook Afrika- en Moslem-invloed. Ek het by ‘n vorige geleentheid oor Jeremiah Wright en bevrydingsteologie geskryf (Praag 9 Januarie). Vandag skryf ek oor Obama se beïnvloeding deur sy biologiese afkoms, asook oor Saul Alinsky en andere. Uit wat volg, kan afgelei word in hoe ‘n groot mate Obama se presidentskap (sedert 2009) ‘n breuk met die verlede is. Hy is polities linkser as enige van sy voorgangers. Hy is “not one of us” (Kindle 62). Die aanwesigheid van swartes in die Withuis is vir baie blanke Amerikaners ‘n ongemaklike waarheid. Obama verkeer onmiskenbaar buite die hoofstroom. Dit word nie as ‘n kompliment bedoel nie. Dit illustreer sy onaanpasbaarheid. Let in wat volg ook op die talle ooreenkomste tussen Obama aan die een kant en plaaslike en Afrika-swartes en die ANC aan die ander kant.

Onyango Obama

Barack Obama jr se andersheid kan onder meer (kenmerkend) teruggevoer word na sy ouerhuis, of eintlik die gebrek aan so ‘n huis. Hy het sy pa net een keer ontmoet. Sy oupa was die Moslem en veelwywer Onyango Obama (1895-1979). Barack jr bewaar sy oupa se pasboek, sodat hy weet dat dit nie net die apartheidsregime nie maar ook die Britte is wat van reservaatswartes in Kenia pasboekdraers gemaak het. Onyango was ‘n kok wat vir Britte gewerk het. Soos wat ANC-kamerade deesdae graag verkondig, het Onyango daarop geroem dat hy weerstand teen die blanke owerheid gebied het en daarom gemartel en in die tronk gegooi is. Volgens Sarah, sy derde vrou: “The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning” (159).

Toe Barack jr dié storie hoor, wat heel moontlik aangedik of fiktief is, het hy tot die besef gekom dat “their struggle was my birthright” (113). Bragg: “It is impossible to know … whether he was imprisoned at all … no records of his imprisonment have appeared” (151). “In understanding [Barack] Obama [Jr] and how he was shaped by his family, it is the legend that matters. In his memoir Obama admits that he too felt lasting resentment towards his [grandfather’s and] father’s oppressors” (172). Dit is nie net plaaslike swartes wat dit teen standbeelde van blankes het nie. “When Obama entered the White House [2009], he pointedly returmed to Britain the bust of Winston Churchill that the British government had lent to George W Bush after the 9-11 attacks” (179).

Barack Obama sr

Onyango se oudste seun was Barack Obama senior (1936-1982). “Baraka” beteken seën (blessing) in Arabies. Hy het ‘n sendingskool bygewoon en die christelike geloof aangeneem. Reeds op skool was hy opstandig. In Nairobi het hy in aanraking gekom met radikale arbeidsaktiviste soos Tom Mboya (1930-1969), wat ‘n leier in die onafhanklikheidsbeweging was. Mboya se leuse was: “To hell with European domination” (200). Barack sr is ook beïnvloed deur ‘n radikaal linkse Keniaanse onafhanklikheidstryder, Oginga Odinga (1911-1994), wat belangstelling in Sowjet-Rusland in hom aangewakker het. ‘n Amerikaanse geletterdheidsonderwyseres, Elizabeth Mooney, het gesorg dat Barack sr in 1959 ‘n student aan die Universiteit van Hawaii geword het. Daar was hy een van die “counter-culture people” wat op sy “promiscuous love life” geroem het (221). Hy het ook aan swart burgerregtebetogings deelgeneem.

In sy tweede studiejaar het Barack sr in die Russiese klas kennis met ‘n blanke Amerikaanse eerstejaar, Stanley Ann Dunham, gemaak. Hoewel hy sedert 1954 tot sy dood met Kezia Aoko getroud was en reeds twee kinders gehad het, het hy voorgegee dat hy van sy eerste vrou geskei was. Dunham was spoedig swanger en hulle het in 1961 getrou. Barack sr het dus sy pa se veelwywery voortgesit. Toe hy in 1962 ‘n Harvard-studiebeurs ontvang, het hy vertrek en sy vrou en kind, Barack jr (gebore in 1961), in Hawaii agtergelaat. Hulle het in 1964 geskei. Aan die Universiteit Harvard Barack sr “continued his drinking and womanizing” (266). In 1964 is sy studiebeurs weens wanprestasie nie hernu nie en moes hy na Kenia terugkeer.

In 1963 het Kenia onafhanklik geword met Jomo Kenyatta (1894-1978) as president, Odinga as visepresident en Mboya as minister van justisie. Baie blankes en Asiate het die land verlaat. Barack sr het werk by Shell gekry. Hy het valslik voorgegee dat hy ‘n doktorsgraad het. Toe Mboya in 1964 die minister van ekonomiese sake word, is Barack sr as ‘n beplanningsbeampte aangestel. Hy het Afrika-sosialisme as beleid voorgestel. Dit het die herverdeling van rykdom, bv “radically progressive taxation” (423) en die uitwissing van privaat eiendom ingesluit. “At the very least restrict the size of farms” (375). “Wealthy individuals could in principle be stripped of everything without any real cost to the overall good” (436). Heelwat van sy voorstelle is eintlik marxisties en word ook plaaslik by die ANC-regering aangetref. “His ultimate objective was to see at least enterprises nationalized” (386). “Nationalization would primarily target white- and Asian-owned enterprises” (411).

Hierna het Barack sr ‘n pos by die Reserwebank gekry en daarna een by die toeristekorporasie, maar sy alkoholisme het deurlopend vererger. Later was hy soms werkloos. In 1971 het hy Hawaii besoek “visiting his son for the first and only time. Ann was by this time separated from her second husband, Lolo Sotero, though she was still living in Jakarta. Barack Jr was living with his grandparents in Honolulu … back in Africa, Obama’s second American wife, who he had met while at Harvard, was taking advantage of his absence to flee his home and file for divorce. Ruth Baker was a Jewish schoolteacher from Boston … she … had endured years of mistreatment before finally leaving for good” (494). Hulle het in 1973 geskei. In 1982 “while coming home from the bar, Barack Obama Sr slammed his car into a tree at high speed and was killed” (512).

Ann Dunham

Barack jr se ma, Ann Dunham (1942-1995), “was for much of her adult life a foreign aid worker, who was often well paid by American foundations and government agencies” (528). Dalk is dit wat van haar kind “a black activist in Chicago” gemaak het (551). Hy “embraced a ‘post-racial’ conception of himself” en “pledged to open America to the world, a … sort of cosmopolitan outlook” (566). Dunham was “a dreamy idealist on a futile quest to change the world” (535). Haar pa was onder meer ‘n meubelverkoper. Sy het ‘n student aan die Universiteit van Hawaii geword. “Hawaii was by far the most multi-cultural of all the states” (619). Hier het sy Barack sr ontmoet, swanger geraak, getrou, Barack jr as kind gekry en geskei.

Daarna het Dunham die Indonesiër en Islamiet Lolo Sotero (ook Soetoro, 1935-1987) ontmoet, met hom getrou (1965) en in Jakarta gaan woon (1966). In 1970 is hulle dogter, Maya, gebore. Barack jr “attended two different schools in Jakarta: one Catholic, one Muslim* … when the boy was nine [1971], she sent him back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents” (658). Gedurende sy skoolloopbaan was Dunham net drie jaar lank in Hawaii, toe sy weer ‘n universiteitstudent was. In 1975 het sy na Indonesië teruggekeer om as deel van verdere studie tot 1978 veldwerk in antropologie te doen. Haar proefskrif het sy egter eers meer as ‘n dekade later suksesvol voltooi. Sy het die Ford Foundation sover gekry om “a women’s studies program at the University of Indonesia” te begin (725). Daarna was sy onder meer gemoeid met mikrokredietverlening.

[* Barack jr se oupa en sy stiefpa was Moslems en hy het ‘n Moslemskool bygewoon. Dit is van die redes waarom Donald Trump in sy presidensiële verkiesingsveldtog met anti-Moslemuitsprake vorendag kom.]

“If there is a constant theme through her life and work, it was an interest in inequalities that result from flaws in the social system itself … It was the kind of thing she was very interested in – some kind of injustice based on something structural or cultural” (783), bv die uitbuiting van armes. Ons ken dit plaaslik: Die stelsel kry die skuld, nie die “slagoffers” nie. Sy was ‘n aanhanger van Jesse Jackson se militante swartbewussynspropaganda, “his idea of a multiracial ‘rainbow coalition'” (795); vandaar Desmond Tutu se “rainbow nation”. Dunham het georganiseerde godsdiens vermy ten gunste van “eclectic spiritualism … She meditated in Buddist monasteries en left small offerings in the Hindu communities” (795). “She raised her children to adopt the same detached, eclectic attitude” (803). Sy en Sotero het in 1980 geskei.

Saul Alinsky

In 1985 het Barack Obama jr (van nou af bloot Obama genoem) aan die Universiteit van Columbia gegradueer. Soos die kommuniste wou hy die wêreld verander. “To bring about what he saw as real, fundamental change to society, he chose to become a community organizer … ‘Change will come from a mobilized grass roots. That’s what I’ll do. I’ll organize black folks … What really inspired me was the civil rights movement'” (821). Hy het ‘n gemeenskapsorganiseerder, onder meer ‘n opstoker, in Chicago geword, “the capital of the African American community” (835) en deesdae die toonbeeld van ‘n geruïneerde stad. Dit was die setel van Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) se gemeenskapsorganisering, met Obama as een van sy toegewydste dissipels. “After Obama was elected to the United States Senate in 2004, Michelle Obama [his wife] claimed: ‘Barack is not a politician first and foremost. He’s a community activist exploring the viability of politics to make change'” (858). Toe Obama in 2007 sy kandidatuur vir die presidentskap aangekondig het, “he continued to invoke the spirit of Alinsky into the presidential campaign … Obama called his training in community organising the ‘best education’ he ever had” (864).

Alinsky, ‘n Jood van Russiese afkoms, is nooit weens sy pro-burgerregtebedrywighede gearresteer nie, maar om hom vir swartes meer aanvaarbaar te maak, het hy beweer dat hy tronkstraf uitgedien het. Sy pa was Benjamin en sy ma Sarah. Sy was ‘n moeilike vrou. “‘a plotka Führer’, troublemaker” (1910). Nelson Mandela se voornaam, Rolihlahla, beteken ook moeilikheidmaker/skoorsoeker. Alinsky was ‘n sosiologiestudent en veral geïnteresseerd in kriminologie. “He, like his [University of Chicago] professors, believed … ghettos made criminals and poor people, not the other way around … due to social disorganization which … [is] largely the result of economic defects in our social order” (920; ook 981). Die skuld word dus op blankes gepak. Dit is Alinsky wat gesê het: “The issue is never the issue” (1018); “the revolution is the issue” (1179). Dink aan Open Stellenbosch wat teen Afrikaans agiteer maar eintlik revolusie najaag.

Die manier waarop gemeenskappe georganiseer was, het glo veroorsaak dat mense “deprived or disenfranchised” gevoel het (981). Al Capone (1899-1947) het die bendebedrywighede in Chicago aangevoer. Alinsky en sy “confrontational, anti-establishment organization” (992) “was accepted by the mobsters” (932). Alinsky se boek, Rules for Radicals (1946/1971), “is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away” (1066). Alinsky: “You want to organize for power!” (1076). “He wanted his organizers to agitate and mobilize heretofore quiet people into active, protesting citizens who, if necessary, would publicly confront city officials and make demands” (1097). “He said the organizer should be ‘an abrasive agent to rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; to fan latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expressions'” (1113).

As Alinsky-dissipel kon Obama hom nadoen: Obama “was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards … He could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better” (1119). Die begrip “hoop” speel ‘n opvallende rol in die burgerregtebeweging van die Amerikaanse swartes; vandaar Russel Botman se HOOP-projek aan die US, wat deur Wim de Villiers voorgesit word (Matieland, 2015, p 40). De Villiers: “Ek staan op die skouers van reuse soos my voorganger, prof Russel Botman” (p 41).

Alinsky “hated exploitation and felt obliged to facilitate an equalizing of opportunity … If Alinsky’s true goal was fundamental social change, a goal that seems to have attracted Obama to organizing, this raises the deeper question: change of what kind? Alinsky was unquestionably, as he said himself many times, a radical. But what sort of a radical was he? He acknowledged an affinity with C Wright Mills [1916-1962], who called himself a ‘plain Marxist'”(1202). Alinsky “always insisted he was not a communist” (1210). Maar hy was gewillig om met kommuniste saam te werk “when he thought it would advance his goals. He opposed the purging of Communists from unions, and endured criticism because he, as a friend recalled, ‘wouldn’t be part of this liberal anti-communist attitude'” (1216).

“He earned the respect and indeed admiration of at least one radical black leader, Malcolm X” [1925-1965] (1236). “It is not fanciful to imagine that Alinsky would have been proud of the pupil [Obama] he never met, but who went further than anyone trained in his philosophy and methods ever had done” (1265). “Alinsky’s basic ideas … shaped Obama’s own thinking about politics and society” (1275).

Charles Ogletree

Charles Ogletree (gebore in 1962) maak daarop aanspraak dat hy sowel Barack as Michelle Obama se mentor was toe hulle regte aan die Universiteit Harvard studeer het. “After the 2004 Democratic Convention, Obama travelled to Martha’s Vineyard to attend the annual discussion about race and social justice hosted by Ogletree and Henry Louis Gates” (1782). Ogletree en Gates (gebore in 1950) is albei swart dosente verbonde aan Harvard; Ogletree in regte en Gates in African American Studies. Vir Ogletree gaan dit om bv menseregte en geregtigheid. “He tries to ensure that he can use the classroom as a way of ‘working for social justice'” (1951). Dit herinner aan Nico Koopman aan die US. Gates se oriëntasie, daarenteen, is literêr, maar ook pro-swart. Hy wil hê die werke van swartes moet in die literêre kanon* (lys van beste boeke) opgeneem word. Diegene wat walgooi, ly glo aan intellektuele rassisme.

[* Harold Bloom bespreek in sy boek, The Western Canon: The books and school of the ages (London: Papermac, 1995), 26 outeurs, waarvan almal blank en net vier (Jane Austin, Emily Dickinson, George Eliot, Virginia Woolf) vroue is. In sy uitgebreide kanon (p 531-567), wat ook nie-Westerse werke insluit, oorheers die teenwoordigheid van blanke mans (Dead White European Males) ook. “Nearly everything that has been revived or discovered by Feminist and African-American literary scholars falls all too precisely into the category of ‘period pieces’, as imaginatively dated now as they were already enfeebled when they first came into existence” (p 540). “In our schools and colleges … all aesthetic and most intellectual standards are being abandoned in the name of social harmony and the remedying of historical injustice. Pragmatically, the ‘expansion of the Canon’ [soos wat Gates verlang – kyk vorige paragraaf] has meant the destruction of the Canon, since what is being taught includes by no means the best writers who happen te be women, African, Hispanic, or Asian, but rather the writers who offer little but the resentment they have developed as part of their sense of identity” (p 7). “We are destroying all intellectual and aesthetic standards in the humanities and social sciences, in the name of social justice” (35).]

Bragg: “Perhaps the cause to which Ogletree has devoted the most attention is that of reparations for slavery” (1958). Hedendaagse blankes moet glo weens die destydse slawerny skadevergoeding aan hedendaagse swartes betaal. “He argues that there is a direct line of continuity between the enslavement of blacks and their current economic position. He says: ‘while the causes of African American poverty are complex, they are based in part on a history of racism and discrimination that politically, culturally, socially, and psychologically disenfranchised African Americans'” (1965). “As well as seeking compensation from the government and taxpayers, Ogletree would like to see reparations claims made against specific companies that he feels profited from the slave era” (1977). “Race has provided the focus of Ogletree’s life and works” (1855). Hy het onder meer oor Suid-Afrika gepubliseer (kyk die Wikipedia). Soos Thabo Mbeki sê hy “we live in two societies: one black, one white” (1855). Soos Mbeki noem hy swartes eerste.

Volgens Ogletree is swart diewe “in jail because of their poverty … If they had the resources they would not be out there robbing” (1831). Dus, as ‘n swarte ‘n BMW-motor gehad het, sou hy nie een gesteel het nie. Dit is soos Michael le Cordeur redeneer: Swart studente beroof die universiteit se kafeteria omdat hulle honger is. Die hoë prioriteit wat die besteling van drankwinkels geniet, kan dan aan die diewe se dors toegeskryf word, ens. Ogletree: “The law can be ‘an instrument for social and political change … a tool to empower the dispossessed and disenfranchised … and a means to make the privileged more respectful of differences'” (1841). “The courts have proved an especially powerful and pernicious vehicle for racism … Ogletree openly describes himself as a liberal and judicial activist” (1862). “He believes that the state exists not just to protect individual rights and arbitrate neutrally between the claims of various individuals and groups. Rather, it must take an active part in addressing inequalities created by the social system” (1869).

Volgens Ogletree moet die staat bv haatspraak reguleer. “He considers individuals, communities and the state to be under a moral obligation ‘to offset the burdens of free speech as it affects minority communities.'” Daarmee breek hy nie ‘n lansie vir blankes in Suid-Afrika nie, maar vir swartes in Amerika. “He has openly compared capital punishment to lynching, and thinks that the use of the death penalty is a reflection of America’s pervasive racism. … ‘To take a historical view, the racially disproportionate application of the death penalty can be seen as being in historical continuity with the long and sordid history of lynching in this country'” (1905). Nelson Mandela het hom ook teen die doodstraf uitgespreek omdat die meeste misdadigers wat andersins tereggestel sou word swart sou wees.

Ogletree ondersteun uiteraard ook regstellende aksie. Hy sê bv van universiteitstoelating: “Affirmative action admissions policies seek to realign the balance of power and opportunity by doing what is, at heart, quite simple: affirmatively including the formerly excluded” (1869). Russel Botman het ontken dat daar by die US se MBChB-toelating teen blankes op grond van ras gediskrimineer word. Dié toelating word glo bloot “belyn”. Obama se wens om onwettige immigrante wettig te verklaar en grensbeheer tussen die suidelike state en Mexiko te verslap, kan aan die invloed van Ogletree toegeskryf word. Die oorgrote meerderheid sodanig gewettigde inkommers sal vir die Demokratiese Party stem. Ogletree beweer Amerika se immigrasiebeleid berus op dubbele standaarde omdat blankes bevoordeel en nie-wittes benadeel word. “Once inside the country, Latinos are systematically and disproportionately targeted for deportation” (1931).

Slot

In Suid-Afrika word die staatshoof deur die dominante politieke party benoem. In Amerika word hy regstreeks deur die kiesers verkies. Dat iemand soos Obama, met sy anti-blanke, kommunistiese en Moslem-simpatieë, die president van Amerika geword het en selfs vir ‘n tweede termyn herkies is, behoort wantroue in demokrasie as politieke stelsel te wek. Die oorwig Amerikaanse kiesers word as beskaafde, geletterde, ontwikkelde mense beskou. Hulle behoort ook in redelike mate ingeligte mense te wees, hoewel die betroubaarheid/ewewigtigheid van baie van die (ideologiese) inligting wat hulle bereik, bevraagteken kan word. In Suid-Afrika, met sy oorwig van minder ontwikkelde, beperk geletterde en swak ingeligte kiesers, het stikdonker nag in 1994 aangebreek weens bv algemene stemreg en ‘n uiters gebrekkige grondwet. Byvoorbeeld, omdat die staatshoof nie direk deur die kiesers verkies word nie, het Nelson Mandela die dwaasheid verkondig dat hy sy laaste jaar in dié pos wou gebruik om uitsluitlik die ANC se belange te dien. As staatshoof beskou Jacob Zuma hom klaarblyklik nie as iemand wat alle Suid-Afrikaners se belange moet bevorder nie. Daarom gee hy blankes die skuld vir alles wat verkeerd is en etiketteer hy hulle selfs as gronddiewe.

Leon Lemmer: Bevrydingsteologie

Barack Hussein Obama (gebore in 1961) het in 2009 te midde van groot euforie die 44ste Amerikaanse president geword. Dié groot opgewondenheid het veral uit swart geledere gekom, mildelik gesteun deur wit liberaliste, want Obama is die eerste swart president in die Withuis. (Die ANC sou lankal die naam van die presidentswoning geafrikaniseer het.) Sedertdien het daar groot ontnugtering met Obama se leierskap by ‘n groot deel van die Amerikaanse bevolking ingetree. In baie gevalle het dit niks met etnisiteit te make nie. Toe Obama verkies is, was baie inligting oor sy verlede nie algemeen bekend nie. Ideologies pas hy glad nie in by die Amerikaanse hoofstroom nie. Een van die groot onheile in Obama se gees is die invloed wat bevrydingsteologie op hom gehad het. Ek hoop om by ‘n latere geleentheid in besonderhede te skryf oor wat Obama is. In hierdie rubriek beperk ek my aandag by die wesenlike aard van bevrydingsteologie omdat dit ook plaaslik ‘n hoogs onsalige invloed uitoefen.

Die teks wat ek gebruik, is hoofstuk 4 van William Washington Bragg se uitstekende studie, Obama’s radical roots: Saul Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright, and the others who shaped his worldview (The Jefferson Adams Library of American History, 2011, 105p; Amazon Kindle $7,97). Die persoon wat ek uitsonder vir aandag is Jeremiah Wright (gebore in 1941). Hy was Obama se pastoor tydens sy verblyf in Chicago as “community organizer” (1985-1988). Die kerk is die Trinity United Church of Christ, waar Wright die prediker van 1972 tot sy aftrede in 2008 was. Obama en Wright het in 1987 ontmoet. In daardie stadium het Obama ooreenkomstig sy opvoeding geen kerklike verbintenis gehad nie. In Indonesië het hy egter ‘n tyd lank ‘n Moslemskool bygewoon. Van 1992 tot 2008 was Obama ‘n Trinity-lidmaat. Wat hom na die christelike godsdiens aangetrek het, was Wright se swart bevrydingsteologie.

Toe Obama in 2008 besig was met sy veldtog om die VSA se president te word, het Wright se anti-Amerikaanse en anti-semitiese uitsprake in preke bekend geword. Byvoorbeeld, volgens Wright Amerika “supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans” (Kindle 1327). Obama het dit toe gerade geag om sy lidmaatskap van die Trinity-kerkgenootskap te beëindig, maar hy het Wright nie veroordeel nie. Obama het sy slagspreuk, “The Audacity of Hope”, wat ook die titel van een van sy boeke (2006) is, by Wright oorgeneem. Hoop is een van die begrippe wat in die geledere van Amerikaanse swartes misbruik word om hulle in hulle stryd om “geregtigheid” teen blankes aan te spoor. Plaaslik het dit aan die Universiteit Stellenbosch (US) sonder (veel) protes weerklank in die bevrydingsteoloog Russel Botman se Hoopprojek gevind.

Ek laat Obama nou agterweë en gebruik Bragg se boek om die aard van bevrydingsteologie te belig. Bragg verskaf ‘n duidelike en gesaghebbende uitsetting daarvan. Dit is plaaslik ter sake omdat hierdie ideologiese virus/meem, soos die geval met baie ander idees is, van Amerika na Suid-Afrika oorgewaai het, met uiters nadelige gevolge. Bevrydingsteologie is wesenlik so skandalig dat die verregaande vertolkings waarmee vorendag gekom word konvensioneel gelowige christene aanstoot kan gee. Ter wille van egtheid maak ek oorwegend van aanhalings gebruik. Daar is talle variasies binne bevrydingsteologie, maar die uiteensetting wat volg gee ‘n betroubare aanduiding van die kernbeskouings.

Wright is nie ‘n oorspronklike denker nie. Dit gaan vir hom om swart bewussyn en swart mag. Hy het sy idees van prominente Amerikaanse swart bevrydingsteoloë oorgeneem. “From the beginning of his tenure at Trinity, Wright emphasised social justice, pushing members to engage in political activism. He established educational programs for members focused on black authors and figures from black history” (1400). “Wright sees his educational programs as crucial to forging a distinctively black identity, in resistance to the culture of white America. He says ‘assimilation slowly kills you’ and that ‘sin and assimilation are just alike'”* (1727). “Wright himself says of his church that its ‘theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center” (1421).

[* Die swart minderheid in Amerika word vryelik toegelaat om rasse-integrasie teen te staan en groepidentiteit uit te leef. In Suid-Afrika met sy verswelgende swart meerderheid word die wit minderheid aan gedwonge rasse-integrasie onderwerp en groepregte ontken.]

Die twee bevrydingsteoloë waarop Wright veral steun, is James Cone (gebore in 1938) en Dwight Hopkins (gebore in 1953). Die oorsprong van hierdie polities verwringde teologie kan teruggevoer word na Martin Luther King (1929-1968), wat ‘n prediker was maar glad nie ‘n teoloog nie. Vir King het dit gegaan om burgerregte vir swartes, sosialisme en die radikale herverdeling van rykdom. Volgens hom was rykdom ‘n skande. Hy was anti-kapitalisties, anti-imperialisties, anti-materialisties en het ‘n revolusie van waardes bepleit. Die Sondag na die sluipmoord op hom sou King oor “Why America may go to hell” gepreek het (1453). Vandaar Wright se: “God bless America? No, no, no. God damn America!” (1459). Hy “saw America as condemned by God for its injustice” (1459).

In 1966 het die National Committee of Negro Churchmen hulle by die beweging vir swart mag, soos gelei deur King en Stokely Carmichael (1941-1998), aangesluit met as voorneme: “defining its aims in theological terms. These clergymen signalled their eagerness to redefine the Gospel message of Jesus, to correspond to the black community’s demand for power” (1467). Ter uitvoering hiervan het Cone in 1969 sy boek, Black Theology and Black Power, gepubliseer. Dié boek “relates the militant struggle for liberation with the gospel message of salvation” (1474). In ‘n latere boek, Black Theology and Black Liberation (1970), skryf Cone: “Black theology is a religious explication of black people’s need to redefine the scope and meaning of black existence in white racist society. Black power focuses on the political, social, and economic condition of black people, seeking to define concretely the meaning of black self-determination in a society that has placed definite limits on black humanity. Black theology puts black identity in a theological context, showing that black power is not only consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ: it IS the gospel of Jesus Christ” (1474).

Swart bevrydingsteologie is dus ‘n radikale hervertolking van die Bybel.

“Members of this school of thought see the entire Biblical text as an allegory for modern day political and economic oppression, with a single message: that true Christians must resist this oppression wherever they find it. Ideas of personal faith, morality, sin and redemption take a back seat to the demands of politics* – and of a decidedly radical orientation. As Cone puts it, black theology focuses on ‘God’s liberating activity in the world on behalf of the freedom of the oppressed.’ He claims that the entire Biblical story has a single, unifying theme: God’s ‘liberation of slaves from sociopolitical bondage.’ For him, as well as for Wright and others, God’s mission is targeted directly and exclusively at blacks and other people excluded from the benefits of capitalism and political power, and it makes little room for whites and those who are not poor in its scheme of salvation. On this scheme … it is almost impossible for black people to be sinners, and almost impossible for white people not to be” (1485).

[* Dit is waarom die bevrydingsteoloog Desmond Tutu hom uitsluitlik op politieke aksie toespits en skynbaar nooit oor bv die religieuse bekering van mense begaan is nie.]

“As Cone reads the Bible, its narrative begins with God’s selection of Israel as His chosen people on account of their enslavement by the Egyptians. However, the Israelites themselves fail to create a socially-just society, and this leads to the rise of Old Testament prophecy, as God seeks to re-affirm his political message. Finally, Jesus Christ comes to teach this message to the world, and does so by locating his ministry among the poor and the oppressed” (1494). Ter ondersteuning hiervan word Lukas 4:18 gebruik: “om die evangelie aan armes te verkondig … om onderdruktes in vryheid uit te stuur.” “Jesus not only ministers to the victims of oppression but takes on the role of victim himself. Cone calls him ‘the Oppressed One’. From this, we get a very particular view of the Trinity. God as creator is the maker of the Israelites as His chosen people, with a special place in the scheme of creation. After He has set them free, however, He must do the same to all the oppressed people of the world. This is the role of Jesus, the Oppressed One, who takes on the burden of oppression for all and makes their liberation possible. In today’s world, God continues His liberating mission as the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that acts in today’s world to guide people towards liberation” (1494).

Waarop bevrydingsteologie neerkom, is enersyds die selektiewe gebruik van die Bybel en andersyds die kreatiewe vertolking van daardie tekste ooreenkomstig verlangde politieke oogmerke. “Cone explicitly rejects the apparent meaning of Matthew 5:3, where Jesus is described as blessing those who are poor ‘in spirit’. Cone insists that it is economic and political, not spiritual, poverty that is of interest to God in determining His scheme of salvation. And Cone goes further. He insists that Christ’s mission is exclusively for those who are poor in this sense. As he puts it: ‘it is important to point out that Jesus does not promise to include the poor in the Kingdom along with others who may be rich and learned. His promise is that the Kingdom belongs to the poor alone'” (1503). Dit is duidelik dat hier van die swartes se kant af nie op ‘n voorbeeldige manier hande gevat word soos wat blankes alewig opgeroep word om te doen nie.

“The gospel of Christ is no longer a universal one. It makes no provision for those who are neither poor nor oppressed. Cone goes so far as to say that any view of the gospel that ‘fails to see Jesus as liberator of the oppressed is heretical'” (1514). Dit is nie bloot ‘n geval van swartes wat nie hande vat met blankes nie. Hierdie soort teologie kom eerder neer op die verwerping en verdoeming van (alle) blankes. Onderliggend is daar by hierdie bevrydingsteoloë nie liefde nie maar haat jeens blankes.* “Reverend Wright explicitly endorses this reading of the Bible as a story of God’s exclusive mission to the oppressed. As he said in one of his speeches: ‘In biblical history, there’s not one word written in the Bible between Genesis and Revelations that was not written under one of six different kinds of oppression, Egyptian oppression, Assyrian oppression, Persian oppression, Greek oppression, Roman oppression, Babylonian oppression'” (1514).

[* Palestynse kinders word in hulle ouerhuise, skole, moskees en ander organisasies geleer om die Israeli’s te haat. In Amerika word swart kinders in hulle ouerhuise, skole, kerke en ander organisasies geleer om blankes te haat. Ek probeer glo dat hierdie verskynsel (nog) nie in dieselfde mate in Suid-Afrika voorkom nie.]

“Black liberation theologians have no interest in the idea of sin as a judgement on the moral choices of individuals … The poor are victims of sin, not its purveyors. On Cone’s view, it is effectively impossible for black people to sin, and effectively impossible for white people not to. This view of sin, which absolves the poor of personal responsibility, dovetails neatly with liberal and socialist views of poverty itself, which see poverty as the result of structural factors, mainly race, rather than the result of individual life choices or differences in talent. As Hopkins puts it, succinctly: ‘People are poor because they are victims of others'” (1523). Dit volg dat wanneer swartes moeilikheid veroorsaak, bv misdade pleeg, hulle op onskuld aanspraak kan maak. Per definisie is swartes sondeloos en dus ook nie-rassisties. Die stelsel (‘n maaksel van blankes) kry die skuld, nie die skuldige swart individue nie. Gelykverklaring lei tot ‘n ontkenning van verskille in talent. Al wat glo nodig is om die gelykheid van almal te bewerkstellig is gelyke geleenthede. Aangebore verskille in bv talent en intelligensie word ontken.

“Redemption is also redefined. It comes not when an individual admit to his sins and accepts Christ in his life. Rather, it comes when a society achieves ‘liberation’, meaning an overthrowing of the economic and political order as it stands. Humans, says Cone, reflect the image of God only when they are ‘in rebellion against the structures of oppression’. Again, only those who are oppressed can be saved. And only those who resist will be” (1535). Teen die hele sosiale stelsel moet dus weerstand gebied word, want daardie stelsel is die oorsaak van armoede. “Otherwise, they are effectively denying Christ” (1545).

Met feitlik absolute noodwendigheid volg daar uit die voorafgaande hierdie verregaande aanspraak: “Christ himself is black. Wright has insisted on this in very literal terms. He says: ‘Evidence exists within and outside the Bible to support the notion that the people of Israel, and the people of most of the empires and kingdoms that surrounded them at that time were of African descent!’ He cites Rev 1:14-15 as evidence that Jesus had ‘nappy hair’ and ‘bronze skin’,* and he even refers to the Holy Land as ‘northeast Africa’ The theologians, however, focus more on the symbolic significance of the black Christ than its historical validity: Christ is black because of what he represents. ‘The black community,’ says Cone, ‘is an oppressed community primarily because of its blackness; hence, the christological importance of Jesus must be found in his blackness. If he is not black as we are, then the resurrection has little significance for our times'”(1545). In swart bevrydingsteologie se opleidingskursusse word die “African roots of Christianity” beklemtoon (1746).

[* Oor Iemand soos die Seun van die mens word gesê: “Die hare op sy kop was wit soos wit wol, soos sneeu … Sy voete was soos geelkoper” (Openbaring 1:14-15).]

“In the works of Cone, Hopkins and their followers, the struggle for the liberation of the poor from their economic oppression become a race war. Cone says that the black Christ leads ‘the warfare against the white assault on blackness by striking white values and white religion.’ The Holy Spirit guides blacks towards first of all, a sense of solidarity with one another as a single oppressed community, and second preparation for their confrontation with whites. Cone advocates what he describes as a ‘destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.’ He says that ‘whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man’s depravity.’ He even describes whiteness as a symbol of the Anti-Christ” (1555).

Jacob Zuma se uitspraak dat al Suidelike Afrika se probleme met die aankoms van Jan van Riebeeck begin het, is sekerlik versoenbaar hiermee. Die gesindheid is anti-blank.

Cone skryf voorts: “The time has come for white America to be silent and listen to black people … All white men are responsible for white oppression … Theologically, Malcolm X [1926-1965] was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil’ … Any advice from whites to blacks on how to deal with white oppression is automatically under suspicion as a clever device to further enslavement” (1566). Die wens dat blankes hulle bekke moet hou, is plaaslik deur linkse wittes soos Samantha Vice, Pierre de Vos en Gillian Schutte uitgespreek (Praag 12.02.2013). Die jongste geval is Pieter du Toit (Netwerk24, 1 Desember) wat sê blankes moet luister en hande vat. Dit is geskryf na aanleiding van Ferial Haffejee se versugting dat wittes liewer nie moet wees nie. Sy verwys waarskynlik na wit talentvolheid wanneer sy oor wit bevoorregting kla. In die praktyk het daar plaaslik veral blanke benadeling oorgebly, maar blankes moet glo nie laer trek en beskerm wat hulle materieel en geestelik darem nog behou het nie. Die voortsetting van gewelddadige ANC/UDF-gedrag word nou “gespierde” optrede genoem.

Naas Lukas 4:18 (kyk hier bo) word Matteus 25:40 deur bevrydingsteoloë ter regverdiging van hulle evangelie gebruik: “Vir sover julle dit aan een van die geringste van hierdie broers van My gedoen het, het julle dit aan My gedoen.” Eksodus word gebruik “as the tale of liberation of God’s chosen people. However, they do not deny that their reading of the Bible requires a highly selective, and creative, approach to the text” (1577). Ander tekste wat gebruik word, is Jeremia 12:13-17, bv “die swakke en die arme” (1678), Jesaja 61:1, bv “mense in nood” (1671) en dan ter regverdiging van militantheid bv die swaard-verwysings in Matteus 10:34 en Lukas 22:35-38 (1671). Volgens Cone “the Bible … is a valuable symbol for pointing to God’s revelation in Jesus, but it is not self-interpreting” (1577). Sodra veronderstel word dat wat in die Bybel staan nie letterlik waar hoef te wees nie, word die deur geopen vir allerhande vertolkings; insluitende dié van die bevrydingsteoloë.

Die swart bevrydingsteoloë het nie gekom tot waar hulle is sonder die hulp van blanke teoloë nie. Bragg verwys na die werk van Karl Barth (1886-1968) en Paul Tillich (1886-1965). “Tillich explicitly rejects all approaches to the Bible that insists on its literal truth” (1584). Tillich skryf: “All the actions, past, present and future, which men attribute to God … are symbols taken from our daily experience, and not information about what God did once upon a time or will do sometime in the future. Faith is not the belief in such stories, but it is the acceptance of symbols that express our ultimate concern in terms of divine actions” (1592). Bevrydingsteoloë kon daardie “ultimate concern” as vertrekpunt gebruik.

“Despite his debts to Barth and Tillich, Cone speaks harshly of white theologians, making comments that are in line with his general views on race. He dismisses them as racists who are incapable of understanding God’s message … ‘Biblical thinking is liberated thought’. Thus ‘White theology is not Christian theology at all'” (1603). Cone skryf: “Progressive white theologians, with few exceptions, write and teach as if they do not need to address the radical contradiction that racism creates for Christian theology … White supremacy is so widespread that it becomes a ‘natural’ way of viewing the world” (1613). “The solution for Cone and the others is to break free from not just the tradition of white theology, but from the exclusive reliance on the Bible. As part of their struggle to liberate their own thinking, as well as that of other blacks, from what they see as the distortions of white theology and culture, black theologians have looked to the traditions of non-Christian Africa* … Black religious thought thus becomes ‘neither exclusively Christian’ nor ‘primarily African.’ Instead, it is ‘reinterpreted for and adapted to the life-situation of black people’s struggle for justice in a nation whose social, political, and economic structures are dominated by a white racist ideology'” (1622). “For the black theologians, the religion and myths of Africa have special importance as a source of symbolism. Hopkins offers what he calls a ‘theological anthropology’ that attempts to intergrate figures from black folklore with Christian ideas” (1632).

[* Dit kan om hierdie rede wees dat Desmond Tutu, asof hy dit kan weet, beweer dat sowel christene as nie-christene hemel toe gaan.]

“Though Cone and the other black liberation theologians initially focused their attention almost exclusively on the situation of black people in America, they have since expanded their analysis to victims of ‘poverty, colonialism, human rights [abuses], and monopoly capitalism’ in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia. Cone now says … they are willing to find solidarity with any ethnic group seeking economic and political liberation from ‘Euro-American domination.’ Hopkins says: ‘The Fall – the rise of monopoly capitalism – gave birth to and marginalized the majority of the world’s population in the modern period'” (1642).

Met die duidelike uitsondering van blankes kan enige etniese groep guns in die oë van bevrydingsteoloë vind.

Hoewel bevrydingsteologie eerder politiek as christelike (of enige ander) godsdiens is, is dit dwarsoor die wêreld invloedryk omdat dit aanklank by armes vind, asook by diegene wat dink hulle word onderdruk. In die Wêreldraad van Kerke (WRK) speel bevrydingsteologie ‘n beduidende rol. Tog het die NG Kerk dit wenslik geag om deel van hierdie gemeenskap van (on)heiliges te word.

Die Belhar-belydenis (1982), wat groot verdeeldheid in NGK-geledere veroorsaak, ontleen skaamteloos aan die Amerikaanse swart bevrydingsteologie, bv: “God … op ‘n besondere wyse die God van die noodlydende, die arme en die veronregte is … die kerk … moet staan … teen die ongeregtigheid en by die veronregtes.”* Hierdie belydenis is in die Universiteit van Wes-Kaapland se fakulteit teologie geïnisieer, by name deur Jaap Durand en Dirkie Smit. Die Stellenbosse Kweekskool van die NGK en die UWK-fakulteit het sedertdien saamgesmelt in die US se fakulteit teologie waar bevrydingsteoloë soos Allan Boesak en Nico Koopman invloed uitoefen en waarin daar deesdae geen gesonde besware teen bevrydingsteologie, die Belhar-belydenis, homoseksualiteit of omtrent enige ander mode-neiging opklink nie; sekerlik nie teen transformasie en ‘n eentalig Engelse US nie. Hierdie gees was ook op die jongste NGK-sinode waarneembaar met besluite ten gunste van die Belhar-belydenis en homoseksuele praktyke. Die teologie-entrepreneur André Bartlett het hom hierin verlustig.

[* Die teoloog Sakkie Spangenberg vra in ‘n onlangse artikel twee tersaaklike vrae: Waarom het Martin Luther (1483-1546) destyds nie die kant van die verarmde en onderdrukte boere in die Boere-opstand gekies nie? Waarom het bevrydingsteoloë eers in die 20ste eeu ontdek dat die Drie-eenheid aan die kant van die armes en onderdruktes is? “Die Belharbelydenis, die Bybel en Jesus van Nasaret,” LitNet 23.12.15.]

Naas die Belhar-belydenis toon die Kairos-dokument (1985), opgestel deur onder andere Frank Chikane, duidelik die militante kenmerke van bevrydingsteologie. Sommige kerke en moskees het as terrorisneste tydens die “bevrydingstryd” gefunksioneer, met as veronderstelling dat diesulkes nie sondig nie. Die opstellers van die Kairos-dokument het onderskei tussen “the ruthless and repressive activities of the State”, wat hulle afgekeur het, en “the desperate attempts of the people to defend themselves”, wat hulle goedgekeur het, asof die ANC/UDF en PAC net verdedigende geweld gepleeg het. “Although the document did not explicitly support the armed struggle of the liberation movements, it gave such a struggle unprecedented legitimacy.” In 1987 het ‘n byeenkoms van die WRK verklaar “that the nature of apartheid ‘compelled’ liberation movements to take up arms” (John Allen, Rabble-rouser for peace, 2006, p 288).

Les bes is daar Willie Esterhuyse wat skryf: “Die tema van geregtigheid oorheers in die Ou Testament” (God en die gode van Egipte, 2009, p 239) en “Die profetiese tradisie was … primêr ‘n bevrydingstradisie” (p 240). In sy latere boek borduur Esterhuyse hierop voort: “As daar ooit ‘n godsdienstige en morele revolusionêr was, dan was dit Jesus van Nasaret” (Die God van Genesis, 2010, p 198).