Much of the political discourse in South Africa revolves around an undefined attribute, namely, race. Everywhere there are articles and commentaries describing what ‘blacks’, ‘whites’, ‘coloureds’ and ‘Indians’ are doing or not doing, assuming that everyone knows precisely whom they are referring to.
But of course race is not something that is necessarily obvious or fixed. No official document, be it ID book, passport or driver’s licence, identifies the race of the holder. In the last census, race was self-identifying, i.e. people could decide for themselves whether they were black, coloured, white or Indian, and there was also the choice of ‘other’.
In itself, that is not surprising, since race is more of a perception than a fact. As Professor Barney Pityana has said: ‘race is an artificial construct that should not play a role in our country’s future’.
Why then does it appear to be so important to some people? In essence, it comes down to the fact of preserving entitlement and benefits, of trying to exclude other people from participation and involvement in specific activities or jobs. Other means of doing this include using religion, culture and language.
So then, how are races portrayed? First, ‘black’ purportedly defines a person from Africa, with a darker-coloured skin. However, even a brief look at history will show that the continent has as much diversity as any other place on our planet – there are no cultural, ethnic, religious, racial or other characteristics that can define a person as an ‘African’. Certainly the people of north Africa have a greater association with southern Europe and the Middle East than they have with sub-Saharan Africa. Think of the Pharaohs, the Moors, Phoenicians, Carthage and the Arab slave trade across the Sahara desert.
Farther south, the Arab slave trade carried on down the east coast of Africa for more than a thousand years, and there was contact with the peoples of India, China, and the Middle East for many centuries before the Europeans arrived. Finds of pottery and ninth century glass beads attest to this involvement, and from the tenth century there was an increasing involvement of southern African communities with the wider world.
Major player in the networks
From around 1 100 years ago the Shashe-Limpopo basin emerged as a major player in the networks that brought in beads and cloth in exchange for ivory, gold and other produce. Mapungubwe flourished for more than a century from around 1220, with extensive signs of trade along the East African coast. People of different cultural and economic backgrounds were involved in a complex socio-political environment in the region.
Around 1300, Greater Zimbabwe became the major centre of political power: it could offer traders gold and ivory, as well as copper from northern Zimbabwe and tin from Limpopo. Its contacts extended north into modern Tanzania, and a successful agricultural economy developed to support the sizeable population.
Quite clearly over these many centuries people from many different regions of the world would have mixed their genes.
About 2 000 years ago the pastoral Khoikhoi moved into southwestern southern Africa, joining the hunter-gatherer San people who had been there for many centuries. There was intermixing between these different groups, and the National Geographic Genographic Project lists the Khoisan as a reference population group containing perhaps some of the oldest populations in Africa. They have a unique genetic pattern that sets them apart from most other African groups, but even here there is a 3% origin listed in Southern Asia.
Simon de la Loubere, France’s intended ambassador to Siam (Thailand), who passed by the Cape in 1687, wrote of the Khoikhoi: ‘They have a pleasing build, and their walk is smoother than I can tell. They are born as white as Spaniards, but their hair is very woolly…’
Conflict but also mixing
There was conflict but also mixing with van Riebeeck’s settlers after 1652, and in particular Eva Krotoa, who was a Khoi woman who served as a translator for the Dutch. She married a Danish surgeon by the name of Peter Havgard, called Pieter van Meerhof by the Dutch. After Eva’s death in 1674 two of her children were taken to the penal colony of Mauritius, where one, Pieternella, married Daniel Zaaijman, a vegetable farmer from Vlissingen.
The family then moved to Batavia, from where they later returned to South Africa. Their descendants intermarried with many South African families – Barendse, Basson, De Villiers, Du Plooy, Geldenhuys, Louw, Van Jaarsveld, Van Niekerk, Zaaiman, and others.
When the so-called ‘Trekboers’ moved east from the Cape they continued to mix freely with the Khoisan. The Afrikaans language developed and in the 2015 census 14% of the South African population chose Afrikaans as home language, with only Zulu (23%) and Xhosa (15%) having more adherents. By comparison English was at 11%.
With this history of mixing of people from different origins, it is probable that many, if not most, South Africans should fall into the category of being of mixed descent.
The Afrikaners established the South African Republic and fought the British colonisers at the end of the nineteenth century. Paul Kruger, the President of the Republic from 1883 to 1900, was descended from Catharina van Bengale,also known as Groote Catrijn, a slave from Bengal on the Coromandel Coast of India.
The Boer War later led to the emergence of a strong Afrikaner nationalism, which culminated in a racial minority government foisting apartheid on South Africa. Of interest is the fact that many of its supporters would not have passed the test for their own ‘whiteness’; it was just the perception that they and their society had of themselves. It is ironical that in 1956 one of the architects of apartheid, DF Malan, unveiled the statue of a descendant of a slave in the main square (Kerkplein) of Pretoria.
After 1994 the democratic government continued with the same racial classifications. However, they did recognise the difficulties associated with racial determinations and opted for the ‘self-identifying’ technique mentioned earlier. On the other hand, it is not at all clear whether South Africans are aware of this option, and whether they can change their race.
Accused of fraud
This question has recently culminated in the claim by Glen Snyman, a so-called ‘coloured’ person, that he was an ‘African’. A teacher, Snyman was initially accused of fraud by the Western Cape education authorities. He is also the founder of the campaign group, People Against Race Classification.
Snyman’s claim is not unexpected, but what is surprising is that it has taken so long. Apparently he has to request permission to change his race details on the provincial education department system, but it is not clear whether there are any criteria by which this can be done. Shades of the Nationalists’ Race Classification Board!
The Democratic Alliance (DA) has recognised the difficulty of using race to categorise and treat people, particularly in terms of legislation. After 26 years of democracy, economic criteria are more manageable to determine disadvantage, and the DA has therefore adopted a non-racialist stance. Even so, it is surprising how many in the mainstream media hang onto racial classification as a tenet of South African legislation. Moreover, it remains to be seen how the present government will deal with racial self-identification or indeed where the officially recognised ‘other’ racial classification fits in. Snyman’s case is of particular interest here.
One can hope that it will lead to adoption of the wise assertion by the Pan Africanist Congress leader Robert Sobukwe that there is only one race: the human race.
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend