Nelson Mandela hands the Webb Ellis Trophy to Springbok captain Francois Pienaar after South Africa won the Rugby World Cup, 1995 (photo: http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com)
Chris Heymans, a South African, writes from Nairobi:
Racism has raised its ugly head so viciously around the selection of the South African rugby team for the 2015 World Cup that I'm beginning to wonder whether the glorious moment in the picture had been lost completely. For those who don’t know – despite proclamations by the rugby authorities about transformation to make the national team more reflective of the diversity of the nation, a team was fielded a few weeks ago that included only two players that were not white – and it then suffered the first Springbok defeat ever against Argentina. At that very game, the veterans from the entire Argentinean team that visited South Africa in 1965 to play against the apartheid-era Junior Springboks were invited to celebrate their tour. After the Bok defeat a trade union leader condemned team selections as contrary to the ethos of transformation, and heavily criticised the commemoration of the 1965 Argentinean tour. Subsequently, the debate about race and rugby has grown more and more vociferous.
There is nothing wrong with such a debate. This nation has been through a lot as a result of race, and debate can do no harm as it continues to try to come to terms with this past, and hopefully overcome the over-simplistic heroes-and-villains narratives that suppression of debate has brought. However, over the past few days Facebook and other online comments have brought to the fore the hardest evidence that many traditional Springbok fans have not moved on one bit from the sad day one year before the 1995 final when Nelson Mandela was booed at Loftus Versveld in Pretoria.
I even saw one tirade – ironically by a supporter of my very own black-cladded beloved Sharks – belabouring a crude point that "everything black is ugly, and that everything white is always pretty and pure". This was the worst expression of racism, but, quite frankly, many other postings look barely less crude. It also merely reinforces racial bias popping up over the years since 1995 ... think of the “Die Stem” part of the national anthem still overpowering the “Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika” part at rugby matches, or the repeated insults of equating the selection of more black players with less merit (while the greatest try scorer of all Springbok generations is Bryan Habana!). And worse, the old flag, albeit – fortunately – less and less so.
Now, it may be perfectly legitimate to question Cosatu's timing of raising the issue of quotas again when the nation so desperately needs good news, like winning the World Cup an unprecedented third time. I also understand only too well how it feels to be disappointed about some very deserving players (such as Marcel Coetzee and Cobus Reinach) having been left out of the team. My own blood pressure already starts boiling when I think of the prospect of Pat Lambie – English-speaking match-winning wunderkind – not getting enough game time. (By the way, has anyone noticed how rare the sight of English-speaking players in Heyneke Meyer’s teams has become?)
But what I have seen over the past few days goes way beyond a little controversy over team selections or disagreements about policies. It is also about far more than the (perhaps also somewhat unwise) pronouncements of a trade union spokesperson over racial quotas, and the cheap shots by an ex-coach (who, aside from being the first person of colour to become a Springbok coach, also happened to have won a Tri-Nations and beat the British and Irish Lions, while the trophy cabinets at Newlands have stayed empty over the three years under Heyneke Meyer).
My own shock (anger) about this racist crap is so intense that I vacillate between wanting to just burn anything with a Springbok badge in sight, and wanting to apologise to the majority of South Africans who have been so generous over many years, despite the hurt that they have had to endure for so long. This generosity was epitomised by Nelson Mandela and Francois Pienaar that wonderful day at Ellis Park in 1995, and fortunately one sees so much of it still.
However, neither of my possible reactions could remotely make up for this horrific resurfacing of apartheid values. Burning a little bokkie is not exactly my thing, and let’s face it – has wallowing in guilt ever really help anything?
So, for now, there is just the daunting reminder that my all too confident political economy work about the structural constraints in several other societies is equally relevant to South Africa. The apartheid legacy does still haunt the nation, and seems set to continue doing so for a while.
This should not be used opportunistically – as has happened – to escape accountability for government’s and other failures. But the legacy of apartheid rates with other crimes against humanity like fascism and Stalinist communism in the deeply embedded structural damage that it has done to every dimension of life in South Africa. It has skewed big things such as the economy and the land market, defied merit, and removed millions of people from their homes and families, and of course denied the majority the right to vote. From some of the outrageous postings about the Springbok team over the past few days, we can see again how it has corrupted even the most elementary human decency, respect, sense of fairness and other values. Clearly, it has been so effective in its structural impact that even today many South Africans still don't realise exactly how wrong and cruel it all was.
Kommentaar
Dear Chris
Allow me to comment as follows:
You write "But the legacy of apartheid rates with other crimes against humanity like fascism and Stalinist communism in the deeply embedded structural damage that it has done to every dimension of life in South Africa. It has skewed big things such as the economy and the land market, defied merit, and removed millions of people from their homes and families, and of course denied the majority the right to vote."
The following is an extract from a speech made by F W de Klerk as reported in Rapport
31 May 2015.
FW: ‘Hou op skuldig voel en verset julle.’
‘Óns moet bepaal of ons net voetnoot in geskiedenis word’
Deur Waldimar Pelser Sondag 31 Mei 2015
“ Ons moenie net strewe na die behoud van ons eie regte nie. ”
Afrikaners wat weens misplaaste skuldgevoelens verskonend lewe en maatskappye onder Afrikaner-leierskap wat die ANC se ras-ideologie onkrities aanvaar, moet hulle verset teen nuwe rassismes en die idee verwerp dat apartheid ’n misdaad teen die mensdom was, het oudpres FW de Klerk eergister gesê.
De Klerk (79) het aan die bondsraadsvergadering van die Afrikanerbond – wat die geheimsinnige maar destyds invloedryke Broederbond in 1994 vervang het – gesê ja, hy is inderdaad ook ’n “Suid-Afrikaner én Afrikaan én wêreldburger”, maar dit is sy identiteit as Afrikaanse en Afrikaner wat “onder enorme druk verkeer”.
“Die ANC-SAKP-alliansie probeer om my skaam te maak oor my Afrikanerskap. Die president en voorste lede van sy regering verwys toenemend na ons as ‘kolonialiste’, asof ons indringers is wat onlangs hier aangekom het en oor geen historiese regte of eise beskik nie,” het De Klerk in ’n volgepakte ouditorium by die Voortrekkermonument in Pretoria gesê.
De Klerk het klap ná klap op die ANC-regering laat reën.
“Hulle verskerp oral hul aanvalle op ons nasionale simbole en erfenis. Hulle wil standbeelde van ons helde, soos Paul Kruger en Christiaan de Wet, wegbêre in ’n soort ‘Boerassic Park’. Afrikaans word nie meer billik behandel nie. Engels word oral as die de facto enkele amptelike taal op die land afgedwing.
“Baie van ons mense is reeds sterk beïnvloed deur hierdie stortvloed van kritiek, tot op die punt waar hulle skaam is om hulself Afrikaners te noem.
“Hierdie skuldgevoel is ondermynend en verhoed ons dikwels om op te staan vir die regte waarvoor ons in die Grondwet onderhandel het.”
By elke tafel in die vertrek het mans hul koppe instemmend geknik toe De Klerk kap na Afrikaners wat die nuwe vergrype – waaronder “ongebalanseerde regstellende aksie en demografiese verteenwoordiging” – en beledigings gelate aanvaar word.
“In die voortgesette debat oor die toekoms van Afrikaanstalige universiteite het Afrikaanse intellektuele dikwels die ANC se weergawe van transformasie gesteun. Natuurlik is ons almal ten gunste van transformasie wat gebalanseerd en billik regstel wat verkeerd was.
“Maar baie aanvaar die ANC se grondwetlik ongegronde standpunt dat alle instellings die demografie van die land moet weerspieël.
“Groot maatskappye, sommige onder leiding van Afrikaners, volg dikwels die ANC se ideologiese programme na. Min waag dit ooit om hulle teen regeringsinisiatiewe uit te spreek – ten spyte van die skade wat dit aan die land en hul eie belange kan of sal doen.
“Sommige Afrikaners volg anti-wit- ANC-beleidsrigtings na omdat hulle bang is; ander omdat hulle deur hul eie historiese skuldgevoel verlam word.”
Dit het in Desember gegons toe ’n peiling deur die Instituut vir Geregtigheid en Versoening (IGV) bevind het 47% van wit mense glo nié apartheid was ’n “misdaad teen die mensdom” nie.
De Klerk sê selfs die 52,8% van wit mense wat dit wél glo, moet herbesin.
“Die idee dat apartheid ’n ‘misdaad teen die mensdom’ was, is steeds en was ’n (. . .) projek wat deur kommuniste ingestel is om wit Suid-Afrikaners te stigmatiseer deur hulle te assosieer met werklike misdade teen die mensdom, wat in die algemeen totalitêre onderdrukking en die slagting van miljoene mense ingesluit het,” sê De Klerk.
Die meeste van die lande wat in 1966 ’n resolusie by die Verenigde Nasies gesteun het wat apartheid ’n misdaad teen die mensdom genoem het, was self “nie vry” nie.
Dit is vir De Klerk vreemd dat ’n stelsel waaronder swart mense se inkomste in die 20 jaar tot 1994 “byna verdubbel het”, waartydens vakbonde gewettig en “onderwysvlakke verbeter” het, ’n misdaad teen die mensdom genoem kan word.
“Niks hiervan het ten doel om die ongeregtighede wat tydens apartheid gepleeg is, goed te praat nie. Ons moet egter ’n gebalanseerde insig oor ons verlede ontwikkel,” het De Klerk gesê.
En dan: “ Mobiliseer.”
En: “Tyd is besig om uit te loop.”
Want: Die ANC “het ’n agenda wat in stryd is met dit wat ooreengekom is in die Grondwet”.
“Ons moet verstaan dat die doelwit van die ANC se ‘radikale tweede fase van die Nasionale Demokratiese Revolusie’ is om ons eiendom, ons maatskappye, ons vooruitsigte vir indiensneming en ons kulturele erfenis te beperk tot die krimpende persentasie van die bevolking wat ons verteenwoordig.”
Tog het De Klerk by herhaling teen laer trek gemaan wanneer Afrikaners met die Grondwet onder die arm vir hul regte veg.
“Ons moenie net strewe na die behoud van ons eie regte nie, maar na die regte van alle Suid-Afrikaners. Ons moet die instellings beskerm wat die Grondwet daargestel het, met inbegrip van onafhanklike howe en hoofstuk 9-instellings, nie net ter wille van onsself nie, maar ter wille van die beskerming van die regte van almal in die land.”
Dié instellings sluit die openbare beskermer in, wie se Nkandla-verslag die afgelope week so openlik deur die regering geminag is.
“Dit is vir ons,” het De Klerk gesê, “om die uitdaging te aanvaar en te bepaal of ons ons plek in Suid-Afrika sal behou, en of ons die verhoog van die geskiedenis apologeties sal verlaat om slegs ’n voetnota in die storie van ons vasteland te wees.”
From the above it is clear that there is a fundamental difference of opinion regarding 'Apartheid'. You say "apartheid rates with other crimes against humanity like fascism and Stalinist communism". Mr de Klerk is however of the opinion that "“Die idee dat apartheid ’n ‘misdaad teen die mensdom’ was, is steeds en was ’n (. . .) projek wat deur kommuniste ingestel is om wit Suid-Afrikaners te stigmatiseer deur hulle te assosieer met werklike misdade teen die mensdom, wat in die algemeen totalitêre onderdrukking en die slagting van miljoene mense ingesluit het."
So if the man responsible for unbanning the ANC and ending Apartheid holds a different opinion can you really blame people following suit?