An Uprooting

lent.jpgIt’s Lent. It’s a time we in the church make time and space for God to uproot things in our lives, so he can plant something good.

We start out by admitting our frailness, and our propensity to be bent along the lines of a broken and sinful world around us, instead of walking in the straight and life-giving path of life in the Spirit.

We receive ashes, slashed grey on our foreheads, and we’re told “Remember you are dust, and to dust you will return.” You are fleeting. You are frail. You will fail.

One of the most difficult and most obvious truths I learned the first time I went to counseling back in college was: “It takes work to be healthy.”  Continue reading

Nation Building: Our country, not “this country”

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SAY.jpgI’ve been out of the loop on the #Zumamustfall campaigns that spread across South Africa at the end of last year calling for the removal of our corrupt president (protestors are pointing to things like Nkandla, the mansion Zuma built with tax payer money- protest chant is simply “Pay back the money!”) I’ve been out of the loop because I’m in America, and I’ve been out of the loop because the articles that my black South African friends are sharing on social media aren’t super supportive of the movement. Yes, many South Africans across racial lines want Zuma to be held accountable, agree that the ANC is becoming complacent with their power–using it for themselves (the few) rather than to benefit the many. But the biggest critique I’m hearing is that these protests are springing up because Zuma sacked the finance minister and that put the Rand in a downward spiral and the best way to get white South Africa to turn out to protest is mess with the economy. When poor people are out there protesting about the rising cost of food, but the Rand has stabilized, will white South Africa still be there? Continue reading

On Labels & Learning

on

Mmm, yes, canva good job on changing my text alignment.

I’m thrilled to welcome Brettfish to the blog space for the next little while to share his story of wrestling with the concept of privilege as a white South African guy. Brett is someone who is helping the white community in SA start to have conversations about race and privilege, and does a great job sharing his platform with thoughtful South Africans of all races in discussing this topic. I’ve learned so much from his posts, and even had the chance to do a guest post for him at one stage. With all that’s going on in SA right now with the #feesmustfall campaigns, there have been a lot of questions and conversations about privilege springing up. I think Brett’s story is a great place to start if you have questions about all this “privilege” stuff.

But before we jump into Brett’s posts, I want you to hear this. Because I think you won’t be able to hear anything unless you know this, and know it deep, deep in your soul:

You are loved.

Continue reading

Justice isn’t blind (part 1)

I’ve been doing lots of reading (too much reading) for my thesis, and I need a place that’s not academic-jargon-world to thrash some of it out. That space will be here. Sorry, friends, if talking about race is not your thing. You can tune out for the next few posts. I’ll let you know when it’s happy stories about cute kiddos again 🙂

In my last post, I talked about the existence of white privilege in South Africa. In a lot of what I have been reading for my dissertation, I’ve noticed a sharp contrast between US writers, who emphasize that present racial justice needs to take into account past racial injustice (and argues that those who claim to be “color-blind” are just perpetuating their privilege) and the South African writers, who really emphasize non-racialism and advocate for class-based policy. On the one hand, it makes sense. The South African population is 80% black, there is a very real chance that affirmative action-type programs will just be exploited by a few, wealthy black people, rather than helping the poor majority. This is true. This has happened. Point accepted.

But what has been bothering me today is this commitment to non-racialism. First, I didn’t even know what that was until I started my masters here. I never heard that word in the States. Secondly, I don’t like it. No one uses it the same way, but everyone says Mandela was committed to non-racialism. Sometimes they use it interchangeably with non-racism. It sounds a lot like, “color-blind” language, but apparently it’s not. Apparently its what we all fought for when we ended apartheid.

Here’s what I’d love to ask all these academics:

By “non-racialism” do you mean…

Do you mean,” We are striving for a country where no one mentions (or notices) the color of anyone elses skin?” Ok. There’s nothing really wrong with that idea. But you’d have to be blind. Or come up with very convoluted ways of identifying people in our multi-racial society. And it doesn’t really have anything to do with equality. You haven’t really achieved anything.

Do you mean, “We are striving for a country where no one stereotypes people based on the color of their skin?” That would be nice. But getting there is going to involve lots of intentional conversations with people who have different skin colors than each other, so that we learn the inaccuracy of stereotypes. And this will involve acknowledging the different skin colors of people.

Do you mean, “We are striving for a country where the best person can get a job, regardless of their skin color?” Maybe. I guess I would say yes, this is a good goal. We want to be in a society like that one day.  But if that’s our current goal, then it’s an unjust goal. Because some people have had more access to education, social capital and economic privilege than others, and so unless everyone (regardless of skin color) had equal access to all those things, then you’re letting the currently privileged group remain privileged. It’s a bad measuring stick because it assumes equality where there is not. It’s like saying, “We want to live in a country where the best person can get a job, regardless if they are male or female. In fact, we’re making a law that says both men and women can apply to any job, and the best candidate will get the job.”

And it is 1904.

And the job we’re talking about is being a pilot.

We do want to live in a country where anyone can get that job, but the reality is, unless you take into consideration the context (the fact that in 1904, pretty much only men had access to pilot training) then it’s kind of a useless goal. It’s a very pretty goal, and looks nice, but doesn’t really achieve anything.

Do you mean, “We are striving for a country where the color of your skin is no longer a successful indicator of your access to resources and life chances and social capital and income?” Then yes. I think that’s a good goal. I want a society where sociologists split the data every way possible and they still can’t predict someone’s race based on their income or education or any other variable, because everyone is flourishing, and everyone has access to those things. 

However, I would call that non-racism.

Achieving that goal is going to require acknowledging racial categories, observing where there are inequalities, and doing what we can to bring justice. 

Justice isn’t blind. 

(And all the invisible academic people are just floored by my logic and walk away to contemplate a complete paradigm shift.) But wait. There will be more. Stay tuned for part 2. 🙂 

This lovely little graphic has been floating around the interwebs and illustrates my point beautifully.

This lovely little graphic has been floating around the interwebs and illustrates my point beautifully.