August 29, 2006

White Africans

South Africa

A couple of days back, the South African president, Thabo Mbeki, visited the Western Cape province—the province that houses the South African legislative capital of Cape Town. The reason for his visit was apparent. The ruling African National Congress (ANC) seemed to be having serious problems in the predominantly "coloured" Western Cape, and Mr. Mbeki, being president of the ANC, went there to heal the rift. According to a report in South Africa's Independent Online, Mr. Mbeki appeared worried by the fact that the Western Cape still retains one apartheid era characteristic. Of all provinces in South Africa, it remains
"the only province where Africans were a minority".
Apartheid era South Africa gave rise to one of the most well documented discriminatory policies in the world. Blacks, whites, coloureds and Asians. Each knew its place in society. Interracial marriage—however that was defined—was banned, following in the tradition of nations like the Untied States and Germany, whose judicial systems once favoured and enforced racial segregation.

When Mr. Mbeki speaks of "Africans", he unmistakably refers to blacks. And that brings me to the main focus of this write-up? Aren't white South Africans Africans?
He is from Suriname and could easily pass for someone from sub-Saharan Africa. He holds both Surinamese and Dutch passports, but in his heart, he is first and foremost an African, then a Surinamese. "You cannot be an African", was my reply. "You may trace your ancestry to the African continent but to be called African, you must come from a country on the African continent." "You're the one who's getting it all wrong" he said. "All black people the world over are Africans. It doesn't matter where they are. In Europe, South America, the United States, Asia. It doesn't matter."

"The only reason I happen to come from Suriname is because of the slave trade which occurred centuries ago. I come from a part of Suriname, which has remained black, because my grandparents fought against the whites. But I know that my family originally came from Africa. So, I am an African." "I understand what you're trying to say. But you are South American. No doubt your ancestry's African—as well as that of every human being on the planet. But Africans are people who come from countries on the African continent." In his eyes, I was way off the mark. Pele and Bob Marley were just as African as those who lived on the continent today. We agreed to disagree.
Now, it appears that white South Africans feel very comfortable and somewhat proud of the tag "South Africans". But how comfortable would they be when labelled "Africans"? I have often heard some white South Africans refer to the blacks in South Africa as "the Africans", just as they often spoke of "the coloureds" and "the Asians (or Indians)". The first time I heard this reference to blacks, I objected. The fellow in question starred at me and said "so what should I call them." My response wasn't too polite: "if they are the Africans, then what are you?"

There lies the heart of a problem. Racial division in South Africa, and one in which the earlier inhabitants of the land—who were oppressed for almost half a century—are now described with a term, which to an outside like myself, makes them look like the bona fide inhabitants of the country.

The largest political party in South Africa is the African National Congress. If "African" means "black", then as a nation, South Africa has a long way to go in healing its racial wounds. Surprisingly and interestingly, the Western Cape province is controlled by the ANC despite its "African minority".
Ethnic composition of the Western Cape province according to Wikipedia:
Coloured: 53.9%
Black: 26.7%
Caucasian: 18.4%
Asian: 1%
Post-apartheid South Africa has been trying to assert itself in leadership positions and mediative roles on the African continent. However, in the words of Jonathan Clayton, Africa correspondent for The Times, who lives in Johannesburg:
"...most South Africans, black and white, know absolutely nothing about the continent they aspire to lead..."

As Mr. Clayton rightly says, issues of race cloud and prevent real debates, which are needed in South Africa. Debates on HIV/AIDS and crime. And maybe, someday, a debate on who should be called "African".

Related: African Names

Labels: , ,


>>Go to HomePage
Posted by Chippla Vandu, 9:32 AM | links to this post

50 Comments:

Africa is for Africans; BLACK Africans. There is no such thing, I repeat, no such thing as a White African.
Posted by Anonymous Rosie at August 30, 2006 12:22 AM  
Its my first visit to your blog.I therefore,to honor my customs,must greet you.Habari.
You definetely brings about one topic that is complicated,thru history I bet,but one that worths sitting down and talk about,openly.In my opinion,there africa is for those who africa wakes and sleeps in them.Those dedicated to the continent by all means.At the same time I think claiming to be an "african" just because of your skin color while you know and honor the continent by "nothing" is maliciously wrong.However,given the very history of SA I would agree with Rosie that africans(for this case SA) belongs to africans.The white south africans are permanent visitors.
Posted by Blogger Jeff Msangi at August 30, 2006 12:56 AM  
Rosie:

Thanks for your comment. I need not say that I disagree with your view because my post makes that explicitly clear. No one's arguing about Africa being for Africans, but about whom an African is. The Berbers in Morocco; the Yourbas in Nigeria; the Swahilis in Kenya; the descendants of Indian immigrants in Uganda, South Africa and Zanzibar; the descendants of Dutch immigrants, i.e., the Afrikaners in South Africa; the Khoisans—the oldest inhabitants of the African continent—in Southern Africa. They are, in my opinion, all Africans irrespective of skin color.

Africa as a concept should not be based on race. The high degree of genetic diversity on the continent makes it practically impossible to lump all "black Africans" into a single group or race.
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at August 30, 2006 12:42 PM  
Jeff:

I couldn't agree more with the first eight lines of your comment. However, in regard to South Africa, I have this to say. South Africa is not the only country on the African continent in which discriminatory or apartheid-based policies have been used to subdue, humiliate, disenfranchise or kill a significant number of the population. It also happened in Zimbabwe, Namibia and the Sudan.

The "very history" of South Africa, which you refer to, could to a certain extent be the "very history" of Zimbabwe or Namibia. You appear to be comfortable with the term "white South Africans" but not "white Africans".

I do not see white South Africans any less as permanent visitors than I see the descendants of the Zulus and the Xhosas. The Zulus and Xhosas of today are descended from people who in the very first place migrated from central Africa, displacing the original Khoisan inhabitants of South Africa. These permanent visitors of the past (or permanent conquerors if one may prefer) are what we call indigenes today.
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at August 30, 2006 1:26 PM  
I agree with your point that there are conquerers who migrated from other parts of the continent and make new "homes" permanently in the so called African continent.Those were perhaps,in my opinion,order of the day in those days.Therefore,I am okay with within-continental migrations among africans themselves.Just a simple question; when you come home and find a thief in your house,what would you do?Would you give him/her the unoccupied room and let him/her stay comfortably?I guess not and that is why its important to remind the white south africans that they are there as permanent visitors,worse comes to worse they can go somewhere(Europe).Where would black south africans go?
Posted by Blogger Jeff Msangi at August 30, 2006 4:39 PM  
Jeff:

Does your definition of "within-continental migrations" include the Arabs in the Africa of today? When the Arabs crossed the Sinai Peninsula and permanently moved into North Africa sometime around the 7th century (no one really knows when exactly), they never really saw North Africa as being part of a continent different from the Middle East, as both were joined by a piece of land. As an aside, should Arabs on the African continent also be called permanent visitors since they all originated from the Middle East and Mediterranean region?

Not all white South Africans retain nationalistic links to European countries. A number of them do, particularly with the United Kingdom. Thus, if worse comes to worst, there are white South Africans that would have nowhere else to call home but South Africa.

When Robert Mugabe decided to take land by force from white farmers in Zimbabwe, few of these farmers thought of heading out to the United Kingdom or Australia or New Zealand. Instead, most moved to Zambia, South Africa, Mozambique and far away places like Nigeria.
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at August 30, 2006 7:42 PM  
The knowledge here informs me to maintain that Africaness is a state of mind. Africaness is determined by content of character—not color of skin or geographic location. Louis Leakey grew up with the Kikuyu people—does that make the man who defined homo sapien sapien an African? David Duke was raised by a Black woman—does that make him one of the Black family? To direct the term “African” to any of the Greek-based Ptolemaic dynasties that ruled Egypt (or their descendants to the fortieth generation) appears to be political sex-working to me. Every properly assimilated citizen of empire knows who to please in order to appear “balanced” and “reasonable.”

It should follow, then, that we, who are interested in being African need to know what the African state of mind was before, say, circa 550BC when the Greeks really got going at Miletus. To even remotely suggest that there is no Pan-African mindset that can be distinguished among the diversity of Africa indicates to me that the person making the assertion is under the influence of European existentialism (you know, the stuff that makes you say, “Whatever!” like an Encino valley girl).

Without any more bombastic fanfare, the basic foundation of African Deep Thought (the thinking that has made the most lasting African peoples) is a preoccupation with keeping people alive. Ancient African peoples are of cultures so old that there were no others to invade and steal from on a massive scale. This means that African people got into “the habit” of life. Being biased toward life can easily be called in our times a “liberal bias.” (It is strange how life conservation can be considered liberal.) To keep people alive you need families. This means that African people are family oriented people. I have just eliminated almost every person with strong African features in the Hollywood entertainment business. You see how this works? Africaness is a state of mind. For me, not to care what my ancestors thought and go off and make “my own” “new”—to run off and “redefine” is again more product out of the fashion centers Europe—brand new retro.

So it should be easy to see how this basic Africaness, the bias toward preserving life, impacts issues like “crime” and “HIV/AIDS.” When I see a 10-year old boy with a machine gun in Uganda or Zulus and Xhosas displacing the Khoisan people, I see the influence of empire. (The invasion of the Nile Valley civilizations by Indo-Europeans caused a chain reaction of migration and violence that is often underestimated—systematically and deliberately underestimated. Every properly assimilated citizen of empire knows who to please in order to appear “balanced” and “reasonable.”)

By definition, my person can live with any person (without regard to this European concept of “race”) that is biased toward preserving all life for the concept of divinity. Yes, chickens get eaten and bugs get squashed but there is no excuse for assuming that “kill or be killed” is universal human nature. And, let’s not confuse “kill or be killed” with “murder or be murdered.” I think Hamlet got this shit covered.
Posted by Anonymous Bryan Wilhite at August 30, 2006 8:10 PM  
Bryan

Why would anyone want to direct the term "African" to the any of the Greek-based dynasties of ancient Egypt, when Africa, as we know it today, did not exist then. My simple and pragmatic definition of an African is someone who comes from a country on the African continent, is willing to identify with such a country and abide by its rules. The extent to which such an individual chooses to hold onto traditional or cultural African values is irrelevant in my opinion--Africa is about diversity and a range of thoughts and ideas which are constantly evolving. Being an African is not a state of mind. Africaness may be a state of mind. Possessing Africaness does not necessarily make one an African.

A white South African or a white Zimbabwean is an African. A black African-American is not an African. The African-American may possess Africaness, but that alone does not warrant his or her being called an African.
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at September 1, 2006 10:51 AM  
Bryan wrote: "I eagerly look forward to your thoughts about dual citizenship. Even the Lebanese can have dual citizenship! Why is this apparently so difficult for African nations?"

I do know that some African nations such as Nigeria and South Africa allow dual citizenship. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. A white South African could choose to be identified as a South African or a Briton (if he/she is also a British citizen). A Nigerian could choose to be identified as a Nigerian or an American (if he/she is also a citizen of the United States). An African-American who does not hold citizenship of any African country cannot be called an African.
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at September 1, 2006 9:15 PM  
There can be no doubting the fact that there will always be historical and cultural links between African-Americans and black Africans on the African continent. On a personal note, I would love to see more well-to-do African-Americans vacationing on the African continent and getting to know what it's really like. African-American investments on the African continent would also be most welcome. The African independence movements of the 1940s and 1950s greatly inspired the civil rights movements in the United States.

African-Americans interests lie predominantly in the United States. The primary interest of South Africa resident white South Africans is mainly in South Africa. South Africa is a part of the African continent and its largest economy. For black Africans to look at white South Africans as foreigners or permanent visitors is very unfortunate, in my opinion. Yes, apartheid was incredibly bad and millions of lives were destroyed. But South Africa is trying to move forward based on the Mandelan-Tutu principles of reconciliation and there can be no doubting the fact that white South Africans are very much needed in the country today.

Defining a people based on phenotypical characteristics is old fashioned. From my point of view, an African could be an Arab, a black, an Indian, a white or whatever. This is the way forward and it certainly is the way to the future.
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at September 1, 2006 9:40 PM  
I'm largely with Chippla on this one. Yet, I have to add the following. Self-identification, to me, is the most meaningful and powerful matter in matters of identity. It strikes me as amusing that people think it is meaningful to classify and segregate other people. "He is this, and she is that." "No. No. They are both this. You are that." Codswallop, I say. If you identify yourself as African in any meaningful way (such as having grown up there), I would be convinced. Sorting people into batches is a lot easier if they see signs and get in the lines (or queues) of their own volition. And, no, Chippla, I haven't accounted for the difficulties multiracial individuals face ipso facto. Interesting post as usual.
Posted by Blogger Michael at September 6, 2006 8:45 AM  
Chippla wrote: "My simple and pragmatic definition of an African is someone who comes from a country on the African continent, is willing to identify with such a country and abide by its rules."

It is simple and pragmatic to let your master do whatever he wants. It gets even easier and simpler when you think how he thinks.

When you see a self-described Black African doctor, with his 1950s medical training (from European missionaries), telling a pregnant African woman to lie down on her back to give birth, you are seeing a fool.

Every African midwife who thinks with the collective wisdom of her ancestors knows to get the mother off her back. At Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Beverly Hills they have birthing chairs that cost several thousand dollars that gets the mother off her back.

But this foolish Black African doctor with his out-of-date European missionary education reigns in ignorance and inflicts serious damage in the name of "progress"---a concept of progress abandoned long ago.

The leaders of multi-national corporations abandoned the concept of the nation state long ago---and here we are defending it and assuming that it is a foundational element of reality.

My people perish for lack of knowledge.
Posted by Anonymous Bryan Wilhite at September 6, 2006 9:21 PM  
Bryan:

And who is my "master" meant to be? The out-of-date European missionary education you refer to, despite its setbacks, has saved millions of lives on the African continent. O yes, European education destroyed lines of thought that existed amongst the various ethnic groups on the African continent. But in most cases, such thoughts were passed down orally from one generation to the next.

The traditional hunter-gatherer Khoisan people of Southern Africa possess a wealth of ancestral knowledge handed over from one generation to the next. Yet, these are the very people that are being pushed to the brink of extension by their Southern African "cousins," who have embraced modern lifestyles.

I do not intend digressing from my original post, but your comment above forces me to. Why was it that twins were murdered the moment they were born in present-day South Eastern Nigeria until about 200 years ago? Why is it that there are certain rivers which one cannot dam or swim in till this day? Because ancestral tradition demanded or demands that.

I do not see anyone defending the nation state here. In an increasingly globalized world, the concept of the nation state becomes a bit more meaningless each day. The main focus of my initial post was this: Africans come in all shades and colors.
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at September 6, 2006 11:41 PM  
Chippla V. wrote: "The out-of-date European missionary education you refer to, despite its setbacks, has saved millions of lives on the African continent."

Instead of me writing a bunch of stuff that might very well waste my time, you should compose an entire Blog entry explaining what you mean by this quote.

It's about time that we respect each other and understand just how deep into the bones these sounds go. I'm old enough to understand that I can't make someone stop liking a certain style of music. You want to dance with that then go 'head on...
Posted by Anonymous Bryan Wilhite at September 8, 2006 7:11 PM  
Bryan:

If you feel insulted by my previous response, then I apologize. It is not my intention to demean or smite at the comments left on this blog.

It appears that we have different views on this issue, and I'd like to leave it at that.
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at September 8, 2006 7:32 PM  
Hi Chippla fantastic post and excellent comment thead.

I am a 28 yr old white South African, who was obviously born and raised on the African continent. I live in England because I can earn lots of money and travel the world. I am and will always be African!! Any bigotted rascist idiots (Rosie)who try and tell me otherwise will get a solid hiding. ypically they tehmselves aren't even African though.

After all that though, I don;t really think it's a big thing. Yes, its true, both blacks and whites assume the reference "African" means black and "European" means white in the way "Indian" means somebody descendant from the asian continent resembling people from countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. All the above are still African.

I challenge anybody to walk up to an Afrikaner and tell them they don't belong in Africa!
Posted by Anonymous Dave at September 11, 2006 11:14 AM  
Oh, after your brush with death at the hands of an irate Afrikaner, I suggest you then fly to London and tell a black englishman that he is just a "permanent visitor" to England!
Posted by Anonymous Dave at September 11, 2006 11:17 AM  
Where must I call home if I am told that I am not an African? I was born on African soil and have lived all my life on African soil. I have spent my holidays and my working days on African soil. In the bush, on the coast, up the mountains and down in the valleys. All on African soil.

My parents and there parents are the same. My children will be the same.

The UK won't take me in for I am not recognised by them in anyway.

Isn't it sad that the former colonial power recognises me as an African but my own brothers and sisters in Africa don't?

It is in my blood. I am proud to be from Africa. I am African and I will die African.
Posted by Anonymous Paul Watson at September 12, 2006 10:38 AM  
Anyone born in Africa is African. Period! I am white and African, no doubt and proud of it! See my own post on this subject a few days ago http://blog.eckard.co.uk/blog/_archives/2006/9/10/2313057.html

Regards Eugene Eckard
http://blog.eckard.co.uk
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at September 12, 2006 8:41 PM  
I am 32 years old. I was born in South Africa. The generation before me was born in South Africa. I still reside in South Africa. What would you call me? I'm a white woman, a white AFRICAN woman. I have no other home, and not other space I would ever call home other than AFRICA.
Posted by Anonymous Jam at September 15, 2006 1:37 PM  
A kitten, though born in an oven will never be a biscuit. Rosie is correct, there is no such thing as a white African. Whites are the children of the conquerors. History teaches us that conquered people may wait for a thousand years if necessary, but they never forget who the real children of the land truly are. These whites have made themselves quite comfortable in a land that is not theirs. We were once willing to share the continent with them, but they wanted it all. Now, their time is up. They are trying to identify everyone in a manner that suits them. Blacks in the diaspora are no longer Africans, but they now are. That is insane. It is lunacy to allow one's enemies the power to identify and place black folk as the whites would. Ask the Moors about the truth of my words.
After 800 years the Spanish booted them out , leaving their university, textbooks, science etc behind them. Some Moors were probably heartbroken being forced out of the only home they had ever known. But their time as a great conquering people had come to an end. Whites have had a wonderful time at Africa's expense, conviently telling themselves that Africans were not fit to administer Africa's affairs without white help. My reply is, "Thank you very much, WE WILL TAKE IT FROM HERE. YOU MAY GO NOW".
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at September 15, 2006 11:05 PM  
Zulus, too, are the descendants of conquerors. As are many tribes of southern Africa (or did you forget about the Khoikhoi and the San people?). There really is a statue of limitations about when one can be considered a conqueror or a colonist -- in fact, a resolution signed by most African leaders in the 1970s declared that white South Africans were not colonists -- they are Africans who happened to descend from Europe.

And what about white Americans? Are they simply colonists? Many families have been in North America as long as whites have been in South Africa.

The problem seems to stem from the concept of Africa as one, big, quasi-united continent. It's not. Nelson Mandela is an African. So is FW de Klerk. Muammar Gadhafi is an African. Put the three together and they look quite dissimilar.

The history of the world has been marked my migrations of people. The English no more colonists than white South Africans, or white Australians, or Indians in South Africa, or Arabs in Morocco.

To single out white South Africans seems to be more the product of a racist attitude than admission of the very nature of mankind.
Posted by Anonymous fontaine at September 18, 2006 12:49 AM  
To Anonymous:

You raise some interesting points—albeit points I largely disagree with. Unfortunately, you have chosen to comment anonymously without giving any indication of your country of origin. This might have been helpful with putting your comment in the right context.

I would like to state that there would always be whites living permanently on the African continent just as there would always be blacks living permanently in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Nation states as we know them today would likely varnish in the next five to ten generations. A large number of people in the world by then may hold multiple identities.

It is up to individuals and communities to choose how they want to be identified. If a black man in England—who cannot even properly trace his family line to the African continent as a result of the fact that his family has been there for over ten generations—chooses to be identified as English, that is his right.

It is not up to you or whoever to tell him how he ought to be identified. You appear bitter at the fact that the bulk of the wealth of a particular African nation (South Africa) remains in the hands of its white minority. But that is gradually changing and you certainly know that it would take time.

I do not consider the white man my enemy for the sake of the sins of his ancestors. But I consider some of the brutally corrupt and pathetically selfish politicians on the African continent my enemies for what they are doing to their own people today. Why else do we see boatloads of people streaming from the West/North African coast to Europe on a daily basis!

As a non-South African, I somewhat appreciate the way the country has dealt with and is currently dealing with the sins committed during the apartheid ear. Like you, I dream of an Africa where being white will no longer be synonymous with wealth and being black, with poverty. The best way to achieving this is by educating people and giving them the right skills to be productive.

Truth be told, our world isn't divided into white, black, Asian or whatever. It is however increasingly divided into the rich, the struggling, the poor and the extremely poor. There are black South Africans who have benefited immensely from the end of apartheid. The likes of Tokyo Sexwale and Cyril Ramaphosa who own and sit on the boards of companies, have built fortunes.

Take a look at what Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe is doing to his own very black African citizens who have chosen to sympathize with the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Then peep into Ethiopia and see how Meles Zenawi is busy silencing all forms of opposition even using the gun to kill his own people.

If the sins of whites on the African continent must be condemned (and I believe it ought to be), so must all other crimes on the continent. Was Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (now known as Democratic Republic of the Congo) a ruler or conqueror? What about Sani Abacha of Nigeria? Should their children and family members be allowed to remain on the African continent given the gravity of the sins they committed while in power?
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at September 18, 2006 4:49 PM  
I dont know why you all just dont KILL all the white people.
Posted by Anonymous New age Negro at September 19, 2006 9:03 AM  
dont mind chippla. its people like him that invite racist zim farmers to nigeria instead of developing thier own farmers. the type that hasnt lived among the racist whites to understand thier core and deals with theory instead of reality.

fact is african americans are african, as are blacks in the diaspora. if there is any doubt that whites consider themselves all to be european, look at thier actions. they invest in each other and sign military pacts to protect themselves, irrespective of continent. There is a recognition among themselves that they are all the same: european. its high time we did it.

africa as a concept is based on a variety of things, one them includes race.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at September 21, 2006 5:00 AM  
we must treat whites in our society like they treat us, i.e. necessary evils. they are not africas but we can let them stay and tolerate them.

chippla seems unable to think globally about the issue and is too rigid in his definition that one born in africa is automatically africa. a cursory glance at western nation's history shows that that same right was hardly granted to folsk deemed "other" and for good reson on thier part. we must adopt the same position
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at September 21, 2006 5:07 AM  
Anonymous:

"dont mind chippla. its people like him that invite racist zim farmers to nigeria instead of developing thier own farmers. the type that hasnt lived among the racist whites to understand thier core and deals with theory instead of reality."

What a patronizing statement. Would you consider the Nigerian president silly for inviting racist Nokai, racist Ericcson, racist Virgin Atlantic and racist Microsoft to his country rather than "developing his own" people.

It is very easy to make vague generalizations while failing to realize that much of what is lacking on the African continent is the know-how to convert raw materials and ideas into marketable products, or adopt modern methods that all-too-often clash with so-called traditions or culture.

Let me give you one simpe example. A large group of rural farmers in Northern Nigeria rejected a new variety of cereal crop developed at the International Insitute for Tropical Agrciculture in Ibadan, Nigeria. This crop was not only smaller in size than the traditional cereal being farmed but produced twice as much grains per hectare of land. The reason given for rejecting this new variety was that the plant was too short. Generally, women do the harvesting and the male farmers could not imagine their women bending down to harvest grains. The rest as they say is history.

Before you blame anyone for refusing to develop their own farmers, you need to open your eyes to the fact that several cultural and traditonal practices are hindering development and modernization. If indigenous farmers refuse to be convinced about the need to use new variety of crops and farming methods, I would not hesitate to invite outsiders who are willing.

I may not have lived amongst the sort of racist white people found in South Africa. But I have lived with some of the most nepotistic blacks one could ever imagine.
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at September 21, 2006 6:49 PM  
Anonymous:

"chippla seems unable to think globally about the issue and is too rigid in his definition that one born in africa is automatically africa."

I cannot recall saying that someone born on the African continent should automatically be called African. I do however recall saying that one who comes from a country on the African continent is an African. These are two different things. As for me being unable to think globally, this is laughable.

I do not rely on the history of nation states in Europe or North America for moral guidance on my definition of an African. Rather than advocating for whites in Africa to be treated in the condescending manner blacks and other minorities were and often are treated in Europe and the North America, I choose to challenge and fight against such discrimination.
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at September 21, 2006 7:28 PM  
Chippla, I am grateful for your blog. I entertained this question so angrily the other day in a course that I'm that I do believe with some surety that I've alienated myself from the non-blacks in the class. This subject is dear to my heart. But I realize that it is better served to approach it from an intellectual viewpoint though I had wirtten a long racist comment on this thread. After trying to post it several times and it failing I realized that my angry passions were getting the best of me. However I read several great post here and appreciated the forum and how the topic is being discussed. I do appreciate your bringing an intellectual thought process to this discussion that is very needed. I intend to continue reading and research further regarding the matter. Great blog. Oh and I hope one day to vacation in Africa, but have been a bit frightful of flying with so much going in the world right now. I'm hoping you'll continue to add great topics.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at September 22, 2006 2:45 AM  
African has many many definitions. The question "who is an african" must therefore always be viewed with a context.

Of all these defs, today the "blacks only" based on quality and quantity of melanin in the skin, hair texture, shape of nose etc is the weakest.

If for no other reason, than as an apology to the millions of brown skinned people living outside the continent who would seriously freakout if they were called "visitors" and threatened with deportation from those developed places they have made home.

The next weakest is based economically the old "imperialist""exploitor" definition, manifests itdelf today as "charity case" continent definition.

Since no exploitors are reading this, i will save my comments to the "i am african because i was born there" crowd and the "i raped africa in Zim and since Mugabe did what he did, i'll stick around and try my luck in naija or Zambia" crowd (i am not an authority to declare who is or who is not an african so don't take this a bad way, and don't ever let anyone tell you who are!!!).

Seriously guys, you sound so apologetic it hurts.
Stop whinning, i am an african because of accidental birth place just doesn't cut it!! No ones would have me and i have no where else to go!! Puleeeze!!! You make me wanna----
Posted by Blogger alexcia at September 22, 2006 10:31 AM  
What a patronizing statement. Would you consider the Nigerian president silly for inviting racist Nokai, racist Ericcson, racist Virgin Atlantic and racist Microsoft to his country rather than "developing his own" people.

dude, that you are unable to distinguish between a situation where outside investors bring in capital (virgin) from a situation where they are given capital and little competition so they can easily thrive (zim farmers in nigeria)is part of my point about your views. are you aware these farmers were courtd, unlike the other companis you mentioned that saw a market innigeria and fought others to service that market? these farmers are being given the market like some social solution. its almost like someone somewhere cant stand to see them die off so some poor communities in kwara must be sacrficed so they can live.

are you aware that the farmers were given $250K in grants and $250K in loans plust 1000 hectares each of prime land.? do you know several communities were displaced and the remnants made employees of these farmers. and that this plan looks to be expanding.

of course you would invite more of them instead of developing your own farmers. its easier to just bring them in, have somone else fish for you instead of learning to fish, instead of working hard to make nigerians farmers skilled.

that silly story about nigerian farmes hardly characterizes all of them as certainly doesnt characterize the inudstrial farmers. shame on you for presenting it as typical of nigeria and nigerians. if anything it indicates your view on nigerians as hopeless witout whites. you cannot give a good reason for a country to forsake its indigenous farmers for those outside, especially a country where most people make thier living farming.

foriegn farmers that have been shown to hate blacks are not the solution. the seeds of a new zim are being planted. teach your peopel to farm. its hard but the only long term solution/
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at September 23, 2006 4:43 AM  
Chippla: I agree with you on this one. If a white person tells me s/he is Kenyan, South AFrican, Zimbabwean then that is what they are - I am not comfortable with the idea of denying people whatever identity they give themselves - as you rightly say Africa is not just about skin colour. We can begin to get into a debate of whether someone who is Igbo but has lived in the West for 50 years and has a US passport - is s/he still Nigerian, African? In my book that depends entirely on how s/he feels about their Africanness - if they continue to feel African then thats what they are. As I write this I am thinking this is really not the point.

The point is how do they use their whiteness? what privileges do they have from their whiteness? what inequalities exist because of the way that whiteness is used? what institutional racism remains in countries where there are large numbers descendents of white settlers such as South Africa and Namibia.
Posted by Blogger sokari at September 23, 2006 11:05 AM  
Anonymous:

The initial aim of my post was whether "whites" in South Africa should be considered as being "Africans." I can see that each commenter brought a different perspective to the discussion, to the point that we are now debating whether white Zimbabwean farmers should have been allowed to move to Kwara State in Nigeria.

I simply do not see anything wrong with the invitation of the Zimbabwean farmers to Nigeria as well as the financing regime that was put in place for them. The Kwara State government saw something in the Zimbabwean farmers that it felt could be put to use in the development of its agricultural sector—a certain level of skill and experience, especially as they relate to commercial farming. The true test of this program would be in how many Nigerian rural farmers eventually benefit by becoming successful commercial farmers. That, in my opinion, could be a first stage in the "development of rural farmers" rather than allocating public funds for the commercialization of rural farms, only for such funds to end up in some bank account in Switzerland.

Now, to state that foreign investors [always] bring in virgin capital required for the running of their businesses is a bit misleading. One needs to understand that while private businesses are primarily focused on making a profit, governments attempt to tax businesses to get as much money as possible from them. However, there are instances when governments (or government companies) go into partnerships with foreign investors (or private companies) for the good of both. One clear example is the oil and gas industry.

Oil multinationals have something governments (or government oil companies) do not—the latest technologies for running an oil and gas business. Governments have something the multinationals do not—an abundance of cash that could be used to partly finance oil and gas exploration activities. So, both groups pair up and share the risks. In the course of doing so, technology and know-how trickle down, leading to the start up of indigenous private engineering companies, which complement the activities of the multinationals. Over time, these private companies themselves would hopefully become multinationals.

The above explanation is a fair analogy to the situation in Kwara State. The government of Kwara State aided in making grants available and securing "bank loans" for the Zimbabwean farmers. We may choose to accept that there is a dearth of skilled expertise in practically all countries on the African continent or deny this, claiming that such skills exist for the development and empowerment of most people.

I believe that there are a number of ways to address a given issue and the government of Kwara State chose one option. Others may dislike this option for whatever reason.

I observe that you drew certain wrong conclusions from my prior posts, such as my belief in the hopelessness of Nigerians without whites. It is the right of a government to protect the people it governs and ensure they have a good standard of living. What I have largely observed from my contact with the people and government of Nigeria is that people in government have been just as focused on securing the financial wealth of their great grand children to the 10th generation yet unborn than on caring about whether kids today have access to good healthcare and education. There are, of course, a few exceptions to this observation. But it is more or less the norm.

I would appreciate if we desisted from ad hominem arguments. You comment anonymously, while I blog with my full identity. Thus, I would be glad if our arguments focused on the issues at hand and not the individual—I am also often guilty of this. It surely doesn't make me any happier when a statement such as "shame on you" is left on my blog, and certainly not by someone who comments anonymously.
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at September 23, 2006 2:27 PM  
Sokari

Well said. Of course, the white minorities in countries like South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia benefited (and still benefit) from the racist and draconian policies of colonialism and/or apartheid. That is why there is a need to turn the economic table around so that all people get to benefit from it. Apartheid might have ended a decade and a half ago, but economic racism would only end when there ceases to be a correlation between skin pigmentation and wealth.
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at September 23, 2006 2:40 PM  
as i have been posting on a lot of blogs, i think i'll get an id so you don't feel blind sided. i dont see how it makes much of a difference since we will likely never meet.

my point is your take on who and what is an africa is what can allow the nonsense in nigeria to take place. these so called white farmers have dual citizenship with the UK and only relate to africa when they can exploit it. your position encourages this relationship. despite being born on the continent thier heart lis elsewhere and in my opinion these folks aren't africa. but anyway, until nigeria adopts an attitude that its peopl's welfare comes first, and not be concerned how foriegners eat, then we'll be in a good position. but i can guarantee that if these displaced farmers were black kwara and obj would not be inviting them to nigeria to take land and displace thier own local populations.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at September 23, 2006 3:43 PM  
Anonymous:

Well, I stand by my earlier statements on ‘white Africans’ being Africans. Since you are not in support of what is going on in Kwara State of Nigeria, you could choose to address your grievance to the Kwara government or, better still, the Nigerian federal government. The latter is currently filled with people who are engaged in a tug-of-war, as its top members fight for relevance and political survival. I really do not see how much room such actions give for the welfare of ‘its people.’ With the exception of the United States, I am yet to gain first hand experience of a society that has class divisions as deep as that in Nigeria.

Nigeria surely does look after the welfare of ‘its people’ but only the ‘people who belong to the right clique.’ That is why the kids of traditional monarchs get to study in choice universities in Europe from the public purse; why a sitting president becomes a major shareholder in the first ever conglomerate (TransCorp) in Nigeria’s history—a company that has been buying up publicly traded companies once owned by the Nigerian government; that is why Nigerian children get admitted into public schools and universities not based on intelligence or brain power but also on the ancestral piece of land their parents happen to come from.

Whatever one’s views are on the presence of whites in South Africa or Zimbabwean farmers in Nigeria, there is one point that should not be overlooked—societies which do not value excellence, skills and talent will struggle to stay afloat in the 21st century. And, O yes, African nations have a lot to learn from the more industrialized countries with regard to technology development. Without the increasing application of modern technology—be it in farming, the production of clothes, or the conversion of crude oil to petrol—societies will simply be unable to compete in an increasingly interlinked world.

And just one more thing. You wrote:

"...I dont see how it [i.e., getting a blog ID] makes much of a difference since we will likely never meet..."

Now, that is a very bold statement. The physical world is really much smaller than one could ever imagine. Or so I think.
Posted by Blogger Chippla Vandu at September 24, 2006 3:32 PM  
I am seriously offended by rosie's assertion that there is no such thing as a white African. My family has been living in Africa for many generations. I am not a European, I have never set foot on that continent. How can one be South African, but not African? It just doesn't make sense. I just don't understand why some people feel so strongly about denying white Africans the right to call themselves African. Does it make other Africans any less African? I am not about to launch into a long debate; I won't try to defend my right to call myself an African. I am an African. I was born in Africa. End of story.
Posted by Blogger Sandra at September 27, 2006 6:30 AM  
Please do not be offended by my comments brother Chippla. I hope you will take them as i mean them. But it is time for people on this planet to "wake up and smell the coffee".
The African ideas embodied in Ubuntu do not work on a people with no conscience, no integrity, no honor. The whites may not want to be characterized as the enemies of people of color everywhere on the planet, but they do very little to change our attitudes. The AFRICANS (term used intentionally and guardedly)offered to forgive all their sins under apartheid, all the deprivations, the slander, the imprisonment without just cause, torture, murder, gleeful genocide. All they had to do was appear before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and repent. That was an astounding offer that many people around the world still marvel at. Yet 80% of those who appeared before T R C were black. The whites still want everything in the world that is precious, but without paying for any of it. They wanted free land, they took it. (killing tens of millions of indigenous people in the process) They wanted free labor, they rounded up hundreds of millions of people of color from all over the world and transported them wherever they would, yanked babies from their mother, raped and sold them, tore wives from the arms of their husbands (the U.N. calls it the greatest crime against humanity in history), polluted our gene pools. They wanted free wealth so they took it from anyone else who had some. Now they want free absolution for all this. They not only refuse to redress/right the wrongs and put things back in order, they refuse to even verbally apologize for ANYTHING done against us.
The slavers and land-grabbers, the rapists and genocidal maniacs from Europe were able to behave in such a manner because they were first and foremost completely and utterly self-absorbed. THEY WERE SELFISH ABOVE ANY OTHER PEOPLE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS PLANET. That is how they did those things. Whites who insist that forgiveness should be without cost to them (without regard for those billions of devastated souls their race has destroyed) are afflicted of the same basic flaw as their forefathers. They too are incredibly, crushingly selfish. With this as their foundation, make no mistake, they own no slaves, but they would if circumstances were the slightest bit different. Without doubt, the arrival of whites is the greatest disaster to ever happen to Africa. (I challenge anyone to find any event that has devastated Africa so completely having been sustained for so terribly long!)
Brother Chippla, the only who can possibly desecrate your family, your land, your history and refuse to proffer a single meaningful gesture of healing/restitution is your ENEMY. Dont philosophize, recognize.
To this day they want to keep our lands, squander our wealth, continue to murder our children (feed their remains to caged lions) beat the charges before majority white courts and claim to be "Africans", worthy of respect and a place of honor among men. And they must never be challenged, brought to book or pay the price for the precious gift of forgiveness.
But allow me to point out,tthat forgiveness without demanding change is to make the grace of the Almighty an enabling factor for those committed to doing evil.
Stop offering wonderful graces to those who continually spurn them, and you.
At the end of apartheid in South Africa, the blacks came to power and paid the international debts accumulated by the apartheid government. The Constitution is so very white and western. Pillars of African righteousness/civility is cast out like so much governmental refuse.
No, whites have a long, long way to go before they can be called Africans. Many have been born among us, but have never been one of us. Rosie is still correct despite howls of opposition from those who crave to keep Africa for themselves. At this juncture this generalization rings far too true,there is no white African. This they must earn.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at September 29, 2006 7:36 AM  
Africa must be set right. The best way to do that is to start with a stiff dose of the truth. All offenders must be brought to book. Not just Abacha or Taylor but also the janjaweed in Sudan, former slaughterhouse leaders of Rhodesia and South Africa. How can we send Taylor to the Hague, but not murderous white leaders who have done far worse for far longer!If he is young enough to marry that young woman, he is young enough to go to jail!!! Do we only prosecute black offenders and allow the white ones to go free?

The rape of the black woman must be addressed, whether in an African slave fort, a white farmer's plantation or a prison under apartheid. Justice must be evenhanded or it is not justice at all.

There is a modicum of shame involved in looking into the mirror and seeing the characteristics of the conquerors instead of the pure blood of my fathers. It is burdensome to know that within my body runs the blood and genes of the worst liars, rapists and murders the world has ever seen,,, that these are somehow related to me on such a basic and foundational level. It makes me furious beyond description to hear them speak of the great "favor" they did me when raping my mothers, injecting their filth in my bloodstream while vowing to "breed out the color", my beautiful black skin, the badge of my inheritance.

After centuries of steadfastly denying and destroying anything native to the continent, they now have turned about and want to be recognized as "Africans". That cannot be. Cancer, though hidden below the surface is still deadly. A seed planted in the soil of the soul will produce a harvest. Unless serious matters are dealt with, not simply buried with a quick handshake, a strained smile and a hurried/hushed promise to "be friends", there will be trouble. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow , but one day for certain.

Let's get the hard work done before we try to relax in this messy condition we African folk find ourselves in. It will bite us in a most poisonous way if we fail.
Offenses are committed by people who live in darkness. Culpability must be shared by those who turned out the "light".
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at September 30, 2006 6:26 AM  
Oh how this issue of whites being "African" or not will go on won't it. Reading all these comments has been interesting. There have been all sorts of explanations from ancient African migrations to the Greeks, the Moors, the Arabs, - the list goes on.

As a fith generation white born on African soil, I call South Africa my home. Africaness is a state of mind. No one will be truly African until Africa is one big country, like America. That said we live in global world and the days when the Spanish kicked the Moors out are over. There are people of all races living scattered all around the world - what are we to do, kick everyone out and back to where their ancestors originally came from? People like rosie would love that idea wouldn't they? BUT........
hang on though, didn't mankind originate from Africa(see the National Geographic issue March 2006), don't we all share 99,9% of the same dna - amazing that that 0.1% difference has caused so much of humanities problems, so who excactly are the visitors and who aren't? Good question? And in another 200 000 years time, even if the human race has survived by then because we are too busy killing our planet and each other, our descendants will surely wonder sadly about their primitive, argumentative, & bloodthirsty 21st century ancestors.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at October 8, 2006 4:53 AM  
If the Rosie here is the "Rose" formerly of Ungeni Park...then Hi and sorry to see you'vr become even more of an unreasonable racist than before,..ah well,..stick to Poetry! (if not: everythign applies, maybe not the Poetry-part), Hambakahle abafethu, uDean (umlungu)
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at October 10, 2006 5:42 AM  
"Racism" is a system. It is indemic in systems within a society like education, banking etc. One cannot be called a racist for simply disliking or harboring a deep mistrust for another ethnic group. "Racism" has systems, authority to implement policy and law destructive to another. Those who passed and enforced laws that made the "Group Areas Act" ,,,they are racists. Those who took away other's homes without proper consultation and fair payment, these are also racists. Those who support that system, benefit from these policies and the suffering of others, are also racists. If you support the current landlessness, poverty, unequality before the law must also be allied with racist or even racists themselves. If you think that anything in Africa you desire, you should have it without paying for it, you too are racist, as that is the very thought pattern sadopted by the racists, landgrabbing, eugenics proponents from Europe. Therefore, Rosie cannot be a "racist". How can one blame a dog that growls at the one who has made a practice of kicking it?! Rosie may notlike you, but no thinking person, aware of what a racist really, can call Rosie a "racist".
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at October 14, 2006 11:44 PM  
"Africa is for Africans; BLACK Africans."

Then I suppose Europe and North America should expel all the black people within their borders.

I didn't realize Rosie counted herself among the partisans of Jean-Marie Le Pen and the American nativists.
Posted by Blogger Brian at February 28, 2007 4:22 PM  
whites born in africa are not african and I for one will never regard them as such especially those afrikaners,who saw themselves superior to the true africans,and who denied them all basic human rights under aparthied.It makes me sick when these boers claim to be African. How can they be African when they are not indeginous to the continent. I call all whites European and if they dont like it too bad.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at March 25, 2007 12:44 PM  
oh one more thing only the indigenous Africans are Africans so when whites say they are African because they were born there they are talking crap they are no more African than Kangeroos. If any Afrikaner objects to this I have this to say not my problem.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at March 25, 2007 3:05 PM  
A kitten, born in an oven, will never be a biscuit. A white, though born on the continent is not an African
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at June 26, 2007 9:52 PM  
So the arguments still go on. I am a white and was born in Zim and I am now a South African citizen. When I was 18, I applied for a work permit in England and it was refused, (I was still living in Zim at the time) despite the fact that I had grandparents and family friends willing to sponsor me. So it shows being white didn't automatically entitle me to simply getting into England just because my great - great grandparents were born there. So tell me - where do I belong? Now almost half my life later, I would get into England based on my professional qualifications and experience, but I choose to stay in Africa, the land that has given my what I have today - and believe you me, I am not a white with a big bank balance, a luxurious home or a fancy car and a "Plan B", like many whites in Zim had. After living in Zim and SA all my life - I am African, we live in a democratic country now and it's my right to call myself African. Yes apartheid and such systems were wrong, and for that I wish my ancestors hadn't been so arrogant and intolerant of ways of life different from their own. Unfortunately we can't change history, but we can try to learn from it & each other.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at July 6, 2007 11:02 PM  
My university studies led me to a bizzare interest in the 'white african'

As a 25 year old white Australian, I cannot help but wonder what it would be like if whites here in Australia were not the majority. I'd be pretty screwed to!.

I can't get a British passport or automatically work in the EU, yet I can only watch as turkish germans and indo-dutch people enjoy the fruits of western europe.

If Australia didnt have a standard of living comparible to the 4 dominant european nations, I to would be angry.

If I were a white south african, I'd fight for offical citizen status.

I 'm not talking about the paronoid afrikaans living in gated communities and living off pre 94' wealth.

I assume that there is a significant population of whites in south africa and obviously zim that are living scared, without the fabled 'plan-b'(chicken run) to save them.

What for them??. Its time that countries like the Netherlands and Britain formally allow the decendants of europeans in Africa citizenship of the particular 'host' country.

It is truly unfair that the (poor and displaced) white africans are forced to carve out some quasi exsistance---surrounded by people who assume you are rich because of the colour of your skin.
Posted by Anonymous ben at August 15, 2007 10:40 AM  
Brian said...
"Africa is for Africans; BLACK Africans."

Then I suppose Europe and North America should expel all the black people within their borders.

I didn't realize Rosie counted herself among the partisans of Jean-Marie Le Pen and the American nativists.
-----------------------------------

Well, Brian: America's leaders long ago stated that anyone born in America is automatically an American, regardless of race, and as for Europe, I never heard of any black person there claiming to be anything other than black, or a black European resident.
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at September 9, 2007 2:09 PM  
Its disheartening to read comments from so called Africans professing hatred for people of European ancestry. For that is what it is, hatred and ignorance. And since some of these people are fairly articulate there is no excuse for their ignorance. While Europe and America come to terms with the wrongs of the past and make reparations and apologies for these wrongs, it seems that some among the black Africans are destined to make similar, in words anyway. As an Irish person, if I were to regard the many black faces in Dublin as those of permanent visitors - ie not truly Irish - I would be called a xenophobe and a racist, rightly so. As someone pointed out, what European settlers did was merely a continuation of policies of the Shona and the Xhosa who displaced the lands' original bushmen inhabitants. As for the poster who progessed "shame" at looking in the mirror at seeing the features of a non black ancestor looking back at him, he is to be regarded with a mixture of amazement and pity. This poster wishes he had "pure blood" (pure black blood?) What is he, some kind of black Mengele? Let us hope that such people never actually get acquire the organizational skills to enforce their world view on the rest of us - somehow I don't think they will, as usually the African elite are much too busy oppressing their fellow (black) men and shopping in London to act on their rhetoric.

Peace
Posted by Anonymous Anonymous at December 22, 2007 2:13 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link