What are some productive ways to initiate and engage in dialogue with others on issues of racism?

Funny how black people end up being accused of being racist by white people when issues of race arise. It seems as if this is tiring for white people in South Africa who want us to forget and get over it. White people accuse black people of playing the race card therefore act racist without even realizing it as they comment on the subject matter using words like “grow up and get over it”

Until we learn to have open and safe dialogue about these issues in South Africa, we won’t grow as a society. The institution of racism will continue to permeate our culture and paternalistic “white supremacy” will continue to dominate our society. I feel we must all accept responsibility for our culture and society- especially white people who are, by colour of skin, the privileged group of people in South Africa. Until this fear of losing “white culture” is eradicated, racism will not die. It must die. The fear of losing "white privilege" needs to die. Don't claim equality with your ''white privilege" cap on.

You probably wondering what do I mean by “the privileged group”, well If you look at important bodies like the Reserve Bank, the Justice courts, or at the CEO list of major corporations, or at any other body that wields substantial power in South Africa., you will count only a few black faces (and in some cases, none).  Out of the number of black faces you count, most of them will not be representing the views of the majority of black people in this country, but the views of the white minority.

One may ask; what are some productive ways to initiate and engage in dialogue with others on issues of racism?

I think that the first thing to do, especially if you are white, is to educate yourself on what racism is, and what it isn't. Become familiar with the history of racism in South Africa, when engaging in dialogue with others on issues of racism be prepared to encounter defensiveness, denial, and strong emotional response. It is also helpful to begin with common understandings such as a glossary of terms: racism, privilege, institutional racism, white supremacy.

It might also be helpful to confront the main issues that create conflict first; definition of racism (prejudice +power), that reverse racism does not exist, The right wing popularized the term "Reverse Racism" because they were really angry at having their white privileges challenged. Anyone who uses that phrase, whether they are right wing or not, furthers the right wing's cause.  This is what I tell black and white apartheid apologists and progressives who I hear using the term. What white privilege is and how it is expressed in one’s daily life and manifests itself in educational institutions, in workplaces and so on.

In dealing with racism, it is important to first understand certain terms and their meaning as described by Tim Wise; 

Prejudice is an irrational feeling of dislike for a person or group of persons, usually based on stereotype.  Virtually everyone feels some sort of prejudice, whether it's for an ethnic group, or for a religious group, or for a type of person like blondes or fat people or tall people.  The important thing is they just don't like them -- in short, prejudice is a feeling, a belief.  You can be prejudiced, but still be a fair person if you're careful not to act on your irrational dislike.

Discrimination takes place the moment a person acts on prejudice.  This describes those moments when one individual decides not to give another individual a job because of, say, their race or their religious orientation.  Or even because of their looks (there's a lot of hiring discrimination against "unattractive" women, for example).  You can discriminate, individually, against any person or group, if you're in a position of power over the person you want to discriminate against.  White people can discriminate against black people, and black people can discriminate against white people if, for example, one is the interviewer and the other is the person being interviewed.

Racism, however, describes patterns of discrimination that are institutionalized as "normal" throughout an entire culture. It's based on an ideological belief that one "race" is somehow better than another "race".  It's not one person discriminating at this point, but a whole population operating in a social structure that actually makes it difficult for a person not to discriminate.  

Far too often you have meanings of these English words redefined to satisfy the offender because as a white person he feels discriminated against or prejudiced and therefore calls it racism, this justification is a result of white privilege.

Racial incidents happen daily in South Africa. We will not get over it and we will not stop talking about it because it somehow offends your inner racist and turn around and say not everything is about race. It's very easy as an offender to defend the indefensible and not realise that what you are actually doing is really saying racism is ok. Deal with it and accept it.

It's amazing to read or listen to white people telling black people what should and what shouldn't offend them. It's easy to say it while you sitting on the chair with #WhitePrivilege on the back.  It is very easy to not take offence when the offence is not directed to you. It is very easy to say not everything is about race when the offender is white.

How do white people come to a conclusion on deciding what shouldn't offend black people? I'm actually very curious. Maybe one of you will shed some light in the comments before telling me to grow up and get over it.

I wonder.

In a racist society like ours where white people bend over to defend racist act and tell us to get over it, it takes a special act of courage and willingness from a white person to subject oneself to scandal or danger to step outside that system and become an abolitionist. It's not the "fault" of every member of the “master class” that black people were faced with oppression and racism and some might wish it was gone.  But the fact is that every single member of the “master class” benefits from the cheap labour of black people at every level of society. Benefitted from their blood flowing in the streets of South Africa . So unless members of the “master class” rise up and oppose the Institutionalized system of racism and try to overthrow it they're going to be complicit in the Institutionalized system of racism.

It is obvious that many Whites believe that not even racism, but race itself is something that has nothing to do with them, as if White is not also a “race.” On racism, many will refer to it as “your cause” when speaking to someone Black, as if racism does not involve Whites at all. Also, there are Black people who think that we alone can end racism, or should at least ignore it. Not ignoring it is deemed “making excuses” and “not taking responsibility” by exceptional Black people (such as celebrities) using “create your own opportunities and lift yourselves up” arguments to appease whites. Whites conveniently do not have to “take responsibility” for racism though Black people are supposed to “take responsibility” for the ways racism impacts our lives, while simultaneously not mentioning racism being there in the first place.

So "get over it and move on" is the most ridiculous of positions. Racism is not some tragic event to get over; it's the ongoing tragedy of cumulative experiences that shape how one sees the world. Moreover, stereotypical imagery affects all who see it, not just the lampooned race. The negative images of blacks, whether old blackface minstrel or today's portrayals as criminal, promiscuous, and foolishly materialistic, are an equal opportunity influencer - everyone is impacted by their repeated viewing. 

My cultural crisis...

My Constitutional crisis

Ok, as a Zulu man I am faced with a constitutional crisis of sorts. I grew up under the distinct and unquestionable impression that there is a particular dichotomy between the sins of our fathers and the curiosity of young minds. Simply put, no amount of infantile curiosity could ever warrant the interrogation of the actions of an elder. So if my grandfather decided that we should all sleep at 5 p.m. because he has said so (regardless of any homework commitments) then it shall be so. On the odd occasion that one dared question authority then the attendant punishment often resembled something so revered by the lynch-mobs of the Ku Klux Klan, except this was black-on-black punishment disbursed under the mystical guise of love and discipline. This obviously worked for most of my peers as my generation is perhaps the last black generation that still practices those age-old habits of respecting the elders and complying with the code of conduct prescribed by the community. The importance of the hierarchy of respect within the black community cannot be disputed. There is always something tragically upsetting to watch a 4-year old hooligan argue with her mother in a supermarket regarding some meaningless pretext or the other, and an even greater sense of shame when the inept parent then yields to the demand of the classless brat. I always look on such episodes with condescending curiosity. Is it merely because ‘new age’ black kids are now being raised in the liberal, laissez-faire social atmosphere so lamented upon by George Orwell in 1984? Are the new blacks ever so eager to disassociate themselves with the traditional and apparently backward-looking methods of rearing kids in a world so intent on hurtling us all forward towards a future of neo-liberalism? The greatest inheritance of black society in South Africa has always been the militant commitment to respecting one’s elders. It may be said that without such an approach in which one child had an indisputable duty to respect all elders within the community equally then the black community would slide into anarchy of sorts.
There remains something particularly awkward in the boardrooms that I am exposed to when the blacks have to address a direct question and then promptly fail to make eye-contact with the other parties. This is simply because it is a minor scandal for a black person to stare directly into the eyes of another during conversation. This may be interpreted as confrontational and rather aggressive. With the other cultures however, it is the most critical element of honesty, probity and transparency in a conversation to maintain good eye-contact. Failing to make eye-contact gives undertones of evasiveness, self-doubt and perhaps an element of dishonesty. A few years ago I was tasked with hosting a few matric students who were to be presented to various sponsors for interviews. On the eve of the interviews, I then undertook to prepare the students for the interviews by simulating the potential scenarios. 2 of the individuals were from that fortress of Zulu traditions- Nongoma. During the simulated interview, these individuals never at once looked up into the face of the mock-interviewers. They were firmly of the opinion that to do so would be a scandalous betrayal of all they had been bought up to be. Unfortunately, they were interviewed by 2 white individuals who could never understand how on earth they should ever sponsor people who lacked the temerity to ever look them in the face. Inasmuch as some may overlook this distinction (excuse the pun) it remains the most obvious example of the mild socio-cultural conflicts so prevalent in our modern society. In South Africa’s case this is even more complicated as we pledge allegiance to a vast number of difference cultures and the related behaviours. What binds these multi-faceted cultures together is an observance of the most important document produced in the republic since the Freedom Charter; the Constitution of the Republic, fondly knows as Act 108 of 1996.
Under the provision of this Act we are all South Africans and indeed every single culture is duly recognised. That means that the Hindu culture enjoys the same privileges, stature and importance afforded to the Zulu, Xhosa or Afrikaans culture. Furthermore, the same Act supports a system of governance known as democracy which among other things, recognises the rights of the Fourth Estate (commonly known as the media) to exist and indeed make its presence felt. And that is the essence of my crisis. No lesser a man than Mr Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma (I tried to say Honourable, really) is the president of the Republic. This means that he is not the custodian of the Zulu culture but of all cultures in the Republic. He is not the messiah of the Christians in South Africa but the custodian of all religious creeds in the country. As the chief custodian of the Constitution it unfortunately falls within his mandate to ensure that all races, religions, cultures, practices, traditions and preferences enjoy equal acceptance and the liberty to practice their freedoms of association, speech, mobility and the fundamental right of every individual to call himself a citizen of South Africa.
So here I am sitting with a group of individuals who are of the opinion that nothing he does is beyond public scrutiny. No element of his life can be separated into private versus public. Furthermore, such individuals are indeed of the opinion that in their own cultures, people have to earn respect rather than claim it as a historical inheritance. Such people are of the conviction that if you believe a public figure is acting in a manner unbefitting his stature then the Constitution grants you the right to question such actions and demand responses or restitutions. The notion that we are all Africans is an important issue here. Are we Africans based on the depth of our cultural inheritances or is this merely an ideology imposed upon all South Africans by the geographical and constitutional mandates? The ridiculous notion of freedom of speech means that I actually have a right to trash-talk any practice I take exception to. This means that whoever forms the opinion that Zulus are indeed steeped in sensuality and vice is actually allowed to state such reservations without fear of prosecution. We saw this issue come to play regarding the killing of the bull incident last year. Bizarrely, the courts were asked to rule on the barbaric nature of the practice and yet no such ruling was demanded from the people who, by virtue of questioning such a practice, actually brought into question the validity of its existence which is amazingly enough a violation of the constitution itself.
Inevitably, the Zulu culture has come in for some harsh criticism and ridicule of late and I for one feel hamstrung to defend it. This is simply because if I as an individual believe that my culture is being misrepresented by an elder then I should be able to defend it except for one minor problem; if I am to obtain an explanation from an elder regarding why he is misrepresenting my culture then I am questioning his actions which is well, err, a complete violation of the culture I would be claiming a defence of. This is precisely why we as Zulus feel ill-at-ease questioning why Mr Zuma could ever adopt optional practices and then rebrand them as cultural imperatives. This simply lacks substance as I have now been asked whether any Zulu man who fails to take multiple wives is infact a half-Zulu eager to betray his own cultural practices. How do you respond to that?
There is a school of thought that has formed the opinion that perhaps the Constitution of the Republic is actually incompatible with the African practices it seeks to defend. There can be no doubt that the constitution mandates accountability from the head of state but there is absolutely no way a Zulu person could ever ask the president to explain his aversion to condoms and whatever else he seems reluctant to adopt. That the constitution can promote equality and still make allowances for arranged marriages and polygamy flies in the face of common sense. If a group of individuals can sue a particular cultural group for practicing its culture then surely the constitution itself is breeding the confusion by stating that all such cultures must co-exist? More importantly, does this allegiance I am pledging to my Zulu culture and its reluctance to confront elders amount to a form of self-censorship? With this in mind, who exactly is going to defend the culture itself against verbal scrutiny and hysterical attacks if the culture itself makes little allowance for any debate with the elders which would infact, furnish us with the ammunition to lodge a logical defence in the name of the Zulus and their culture? 

Written by Khaya S Sithole
Twitter: @CoruscaKhaya