Steve Biko wrote a chapter called "Black Souls in White Skins?" in "I write what I like" which, while written 40 years ago, has an eerie ring. Here are some excerpts (with occasional comments by me):
"Basically the South African white community is a homogenous community." [No, he's wrong! It's changed! We're not, uh, THAT homogenous! We are integrated! And have lots of friends of different colours! Some of my best friends are black! I can say "Hello" in Zulu! We've heard it said that the most segragated hour in the US is Sunday morning - well not so in non-racial SA! Simunye - we are one! I feel the pain of the lack of service delivery to the black masses!]
"We are concerned with that curious bunch of nonconformists ... These are the people who claim that they too feel the oppression just as acutely as the blacks and therefore should be jointly involved in the black man's struggle for a place under the sun. In short, these are the people who say that they have black souls wrapped up in white skins." [Hey, I've thought that about me! My friend Solomon is from Zimbabwe - I call him "White man" and he calls me "Black man." I think only our mothers can tell us apart.]
"The role of the white liberal in the black man's history in South Africa is a curious one. Very few black organisations were not under white direction. True to their image, the white liberals always knew what was good for the blacks and told them so." [I hope you're reading this while keeping in mind the resonances with today, with how different races 'integrate' in church in SA today. The two Baptist Churches I grew up in were 98% white.]
"Once the various groups within a given community have asserted themselves to the point that mutual respect has to be shown then you have the ingredients for a true and meaningful integration." [Biko proposes a solution to the lack of integration in our churches: respect of the other. Of course, we wouldn't say that we deliberately disrespect the other, but the true measure of respect is not what we say, but how the other person feels. Do you think non-white people in South Africa, in general, feel respected as equals by whites?]
"[White liberals] vacillate between [the black world of oppression and the white world of privilege] verbalising all the complaints of the blacks beautifully while skilfully extracting what suits them from the exclusionary pool of white privilege." [This is so telling, for this exactly where us white Christians position ourselves: pitying the poor and how hard it must be to be them, but very happy to keep on living our middle class lives.] "But ask them for a moment to give a concrete meaningful programme that they intend adopting, then you will see on whose side they really are. Their protests are directed at and appeal to white conscience...
"The myth of integration as propounded under the banner of liberal ideology must be cracked and killed because it makes people believe that something is being done...when in actual fact the artificial integrated circles...provide a vague sense of satisfaction for the guilty-stricken whites." [What? But 'integration' is a good thing, isn't it? We want more different people in our circles. And that's the problem. 'Our' circles. All this sort of integration does is help white people feel less bad about our privilege. Is that true in church? Ask your nearest non-white person. And if you're familiar with Pete Rollin's "The Fidelity of Betrayal" you're currently loving Steve Biko!]
More to come.
Technorati Tags: Array black Black souls in white skins I write what I like South Africa Steve Biko Whiteness
Roger Saner's blog: Journey
Graeme Codrington: Regeneration
Steve Biko's analysis
I have an ambivalent attitude to what Steve Biko is saying there.
In some ways I agreed with him -- if white peopple thought that black people should sit around and wait for whites to come and liberate them, then they must think again.
But while Steve Biko quite rightly couldn't accept that, he seemed, in some of the things he said, to imply that whites should just sit around waiting for blacks to liberate them.
But yes, at the time that he was writing I could see exactly what he was talking about. I was then in the Anglican diocese of Zululand, where 95% of the clergy were black. I once snuck across the Buffalo to the Anglican diocese of Natal, where at a meeting of the clerical society, attended only by whites, people wondered why blacks didn't attend the events they arranged. It was, and is, a real problem.
But the solutions he (and other Black Consciousness people) advocated were pretty much confined to an intellectual elite, and I wonder what would have happened if he had lived. Most BC proponents eventually joined and supported the ANC, not the PAC (which was closer to Biko's way of thinking), and after the 1994 election the ANC supporters were mocking the PAC by parodying their slogan: "One settler, one bullet, one percent".
But if Steve Biko had lived, and had joined the PAC, the story might have been different. After Robert Subukwe the PAC had no one to lead them, but if Steve Biko had lived to lead them instead of the dull old farts they had and have, they might well have got more support.
On Steve Biko
Hey Roger,
I just stumbled onto your blog a frustrating week on the race debate.
'I write what I like' affected my life in a deep way propelling me to start my company when I did; supporting the African Diaspora to take responsibility for African leadership and continental development opposed to our European counterparts fundraising for aid creating perpetual dependency.
At a meeting on Sunday, the age old (boring) debate once again surfaced on what defines you as African. Now, I believe that several of my white friends have street cred when it comes to defining themselves as African - often more so than my black middle class elitist friends who have returned from exile and don't 'get' the land. I therefore found myself defending white folk - perhaps because as a coloured person I'm acknowledging the various streams of blood running through my veins and need a place: Dutch, Swazi, Mauritian, Indonesian.... from what I have traced this far. Having lived in England and reflecting on my value system and way of life, I can only define myself as African!
Later that evening sitting in church I suddenly found myself feeling nauseous and found it hard to concentrate on the service. Out of over 100 people, I could spot 3 other black people. Integration what?! I think that the church can do more to encourage integration.
Integration actions
Hi Lesley
Ja, you'd think integration has been very helped by the church - after all, the commonality of Jesus makes us family, doesn't it? Well, a family yes, but one in which power shifts and moves all the time...and sometimes collects in one side for quite a while...even hundreds of years.
How do you think integration could be done better by the church? I think its bound to fail if the people asking are saying, "How can we get more people of [x] colour to come to us?" rather than saying, "Where can we go that's different to us?"
There are very few people I know who are asking the latter question...
Being African
Have you considered the reason for being drawn into the discussion on what defines our African-ness? Might this type of dialogue be seen as an exculsionary tactic? If I were trying to define myself I might take a few different routes. One way could be by asking how another person includes themselves in my 'circle'. Would I need to be open to having my 'circle' widened and possibly bent out of shape? I have found that if this is a route that is chosen then as the circle gets larger it begins to include many more aspects than the ones which were originally deemed to define me. It then includes many more people than I originally beleived to be a part of my self-identity. Putting a label to what I believe is the original set deems me with the ability to name what is outside my circle as anything other than that which is in my circle.
Gosh
Exclusionary tactic
I'm finding it difficult to get my head round this, especially "exclusionary tactic".
Probably I've missed something somewhere, but what is all this exclusion and inclusion stuff?
Most of the people who use these terms seem to assume that "exclusion" is bad and "inclusion" is good. But what is being excluded from what, and what is being included in what?
Is it being excluded from being African?
And why is talking about Africanness an exclusionary tactic?
Who are the excluders and who are the excluded?
Still being African
Perhaps then it's not an exclusionary tactic.
Actually the 'exclusionary' bit is lifted from Rogers' excerpt of Steve Biko' 'I write what I like'.
Having been at the receiving end of the question of just what makes me believe that I am African, I realised that there must be a reason for the challenge.
Some people believe that they are defined not as single entities but rather within a larger group. A person is a person because of other people! I would not be a Christian man if it were not for others who introduced me to the faith and who have worked hard so that I could hear the message of Christ. I cannot identify myself as a Christian if I am alone - it's a group, a set. It's a very large set with numerous aspects to it. There have always been those who had their ideas about being included in this group but who also had other ideas about the criteria for being in. Not everyone agreed, still not everyone agrees. For some, being in the set will determine who receives the ultimate inheritance. A major aspect to the Kingdom of God is to do with inheritance (for Adam and Eve - the garden, for the Hebrew people - the land that God promised, for those of the new covenant - the Kingdom of God).
Defining oneself as African has to a large degree to with entitlement to 'land'. Those who possess it yet are unable to define themselves as belonging to the set of 'being African' may very well be (justifiably for some) asked to relinquish their ownership of the land.
So, if I can be excluded from 'being African' by virtue of not possessing traits, characterisitics, beliefs, understanding, worldview and desire which according to the person asking the question would be required to me being in his/her set, then I can be excluded from the 'land'.
Therefore, if you happen to have a so-called 'white' skin colour and live in Africa do not fall prey to attending to the privileges afforded your colour/race. The discussion of Africanness is a valid one, be aware that there are many who enter it carrying enormous hurt and a few who enter it wanting to increase the criteria. While many feel betrayed by others they may not have seen the good fruit you have grown.
Exclusionary tactics
Yes, we are who we are because of other people -- but which other people?
Chech the post on my blog on How racist are you?
Ja, it's a challenge
Dear Steve,
I had a look.
Having recently moved into a new area of the country I found that this was a pronounced aspect of the local way of speaking for all race groups I encounter. There is a lot of 'they'ing and a lot of distancing, a great amount of fear and little love.
I have found it tremendously sad and as 'we' (my wife and I) have settled in to the area it has been difficult to build relations with people who carry these attitudes on their sleeves. Some carry it in the colour of their clothing, others on little green tags.
For years I have made the conscious effort to 'exclude' the language of ... ehem...'exclusion' from my vocabulary. Arriving here caused us (my wife and I since we are one) to notice the difference.
One of my goals at present is to learn to speak the language predominant to the area. I can say far more than 'hello' already and have a feel for it and am tired of being told that I can't preach in those areas as I don't speak the language. It's where I want to be.
We are who we are because of those who cared, and those who did not care. We are who we are because of the influences on our ancestors, and we are who we are as a result of the dreams they had and the dreams we have and share with those who will listen. We are who we are as a result of the effects we have had on our environment - human, animal, and the soil we live on. We are who we are since God has made himself known to us and drawn us to Him.
Steve, I am who I am because of you.
Feel the love man.
Doug
Post new comment