[Debate] An imaginary trip to the land of the Anthropoid Apes: RW Johnson’s racist outburst, apartheid nostalgia and other hysterics

[Riaz K Tayob]

This debate is quite charged.

At a more general level of abstraction, for the movement as a whole, can 
we look to see what grains of truth are in what Majavu and Heinrich are 
alluding to. For this purpose, I am distilling what is important to me, 
to explore perhaps with others some key themes.

On Majavu, there is a strident, and much needed, call regarding the 
Black Consciousness perspective. While addressing the particular cases 
of UPM etc, instances of reproduction of race relations, he asserts the 
capability of black people to lead their own campaigns. Simultaneously 
he has to deal with and struggle with defining the terms (ontology) in 
which the problem is defined, and here he is not in an enviable place 
however necessary his task is, and I am glad that he is taking it up. As 
Ran pointed out, the 'enemy within' is a key issue. Race is a valid 
category, but how it coexists with other categories, gender, class, etc, 
is as usual not easy to navigate. But his insistence on agency and 
capacity (which is both an indicator of current capabilities as well as 
potential capabilities) is a key point that cannot be dismissed. It is 
not about an authentic BCM, but a BCM that starts with African 
person/people as the central feature. And, the situation is grave, and 
the radical positions he puts forth as well as claims to legitimacy are 
guided by this perspicacious perception of need, priority and action. If 
any find him prickly, this is precisely what we need from his vantage...

The issue I see lacking is how Majavu's BC can come together with other 
social forces (people, social movements, intellectuals) to enhance their 
power (in quest for emancipation, pedagogy, service needs, etc).

Part of how Majavu defines the problems seems to make the primary 
problem in terms of the race relations, well meaning 
whites/liberals/academics etc.

Heinrich on the hand, _arguably_, sees the issue not in terms of race. 
He raises issues about the quality of social movements. As does Johnson. 
While I would put them in different categories, there may well be gems 
of truth in what they both say. Johnson's take on universities and the 
bureaucracy has been echoed even by others with more credibility for the 
left (eg Vally) than him (one can just look at the piling up of debt by 
institutions that shows that like the Arms Deal universities are also 
ATMs for massive withdrawals). In this vein, Heinrich's points about 
activists lacking depth may or may not be true. But can we afford to 
ignore the warning irrespective of the source? Does it matter if Fanon 
is the inspiration or not, or if social justice is framed in local 
terms, with Fanon bastardised in a convenient form?

Is there something about the way we frame the legitimacy debates in SA 
discourse that prevents us from more targeted and unified concerted 
action? If legitimacy of position must be backed up by people support 
then is it any wonder there is an "imposition" by left academics on 
social movements? Likewise, do social movements supplement 
(strategically, unstrategically or opportunistically) their shortcomings 
(perceived or real) by relying on others?

If these debates are so fraught, why is it that we lack the ability to 
put in place processes or people that can at least ensure that these 
conflicts are understood within the broader conception of the left as a 
movement of servants of the people? This is not some romantic notion 
about no conflict, these can be healthy, but we cannot presume that this 
issue is being handled best in this way, particularly if it has 
implications and lessons for the movement as a whole. Perhaps this is an 
issue that perhaps more debaters can weigh in on, as we come to these 
types of issues time and time again, and it is hard to resist the 
polemic...myself especially

When collective action and solidarity are hemmed in by "unspoken" (i.e. 
not dealt with properly) conversations, then perhaps some discourse 
analysis rather than navel gazing may be in order...

I hope we can open this topic up, at a general level, and deal with the 
very important themes... Majavu, Heinrich this is not just your issue... 
so you both are not alone...





On 2012/04/14 12:57 PM, Benjamin Fogel wrote:
> I don't understand why anyone would bother to defend R.W. he's such a 
> pompous bougy dick in everything especially his prose. His 
> anti-apartheid cred is also suspect, a quick trip to the LRB archives 
> reveals he seems to have spent the 80s painting the ANC as the 
> antichrist and praising the IFP for possessing a semblance of liberal 
> social democratic values.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Debate-list mailing list
> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/attachments/20120414/da5adba3/attachment-0001.htm