[Debate] FW: I Thus Caught That Colonial Mind-Set At Work

[Shannon Walsh]

Hi all,

This is all too familiar.

As I have direct experience of the branding and gate-keeping in
Durban, I feel I must also weigh in.

When I raised pretty mild and comradely concerns about Abahlali’s
academic gatekeepers and the negative effects they were having on the
movement in Durban, I was derided and undercut through vicious slander
and whisper campaigns.

 In my case, I was deemed a woman unable to think for herself, and
therefor under the sway of men with the ‘real’ opinions that mattered.
Or, I was attempting to ‘destroy movements’. The pack of lies that
were spread about me personally to people inside and outside the
movement still boggles my mind.

You can read my criticisms in the article I wrote for ROAPE in 2007,
and circulated to S’bu Zikode and many of the core members of Abahlali
at the time. In that article, I also raised issues about the unequal
power balances between people from the ‘city’ and the ‘shacks’, the
way poor people were being used to assert legitimacy for academics,
and the ways that activists were still able to find agency in such
mired relationships.  (ccs.ukzn.ac.za/files/WALSH_Bond_Desai.pdf)

At that time, the desire by white intellectuals such as Richard
Pithouse to keep tight control of a black poor people’s movement was
very disturbing. I don’t understand how Majavu can simultaneously
point the finger at Bohmke and pretend like Pithouse doesn’t exist. Or
is it just the case of the ‘good’ white and the ‘bad’ white?

The romanticisation of poor black people is not pro-Black. Nor is it
anti-Racist. Far from. At the time, I quoted Bertrand Russell’s sharp
analysis about how “idealising the oppressed is useful to the
hegemonic classes, both to assuage guilt, but also to refuse the
oppressed real power since it is their very subjection that makes them
virtuous.”

It is liberal at best, patronizing and oppressive at worst.

Why is it absolutely impossible to actually have a discussion on the
role that intellectuals and academics have had on movements? Why can
there be no self-reflection at a time when South African movements
barely exist, and much of the rest of the world is in uprisings? At
the very least, there is certainly some self-analysis to be done
around the role that (mostly white) academics and the current
“revolutionary vanguard” have played in black people’s movements.

What is at stake, and what always has been, is the fact that there is
a very ill vanguardist political tradition in this country that breeds
the kind of manipulation and gate-keeping we saw in Durban. It is a
tendency that Bohmke identifies well, probably because, as he admits,
he was once part of it.

It is ironic that Bohmke is raising the issue that these (mostly
white) academics are destructive to movements and Majavu is basically
saying the same thing, but twisting Bohmke’s words around to construe
Bohmke as the source problem.

The ‘philosopher and his poor’ is hardly a new issue.

Shannon



On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Mzimasi <mzimasi at ilrig.org.za> wrote:
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mzimasi [mailto:mzimasi at ilrig.org.za]
> Sent: 16 April 2012 01:50 PM
> To: 'Debate is a listserve that attempts to promote information andanalyses
> of interest to the independent left in South andSouthern Africa'
> Subject: RE: [Debate] I Thus Caught That Colonial Mind-Set At Work
>
> Hi Comrades
>
> Just in the level of following certain political debates, especially debates
> relating to social movements and their mode of oparations in connection with
> the role of academia and Left intellectuals. I find it strange that a lot of
> academics and intellectuals are still romanticising social movements. As an
> activist in the social movements in Cape Town and working together with
> other movements around the country, I came across what I would call a
> political deaseas. This political deaseas has been taking place in the
> relationship between some of the social movements and academics in South
> Africa. Academics who popularise certain movements while doing gatekeeping
> for certain movements, romanticising some movements while downplaying some
> movements. This is an unhealthy political situation and a political jem for
> the building of an alternative revolutionary movement in South Africa.
>
> I fully agree with Bomke in a number of things that he has articulated about
> the relationship between academics and social movements leaders. I mean I
> talk out of my own experience, irrespective of what Bomke is saying.
> Comrades turn to lye about their membership numbers, they mention big
> numbers when speaking about their constituencies.  Comrades turn to mention
> 30 to 40 community organisations who are their constituencies, but in
> reality it is only six communities. Comrades turn to speak of thousands to
> attend a particular march from 30 communities only to find out that the
> attendance is 30 people from 8 communities.
>
> Comrades there is no point in hiding our shrinking number in communities and
> memberships. We don't have to hide our internal problems, financial or
> otherwise, but if our organisations are weak we must pretend as if they are
> still strong. Our role as activists and militants including academics is to
> tell the truth to the world about the state of affairs in our organisations.
> If our organisations are rotten we must't be shy to say they are rotten and
> if they in coma or they are dead we must say it. There is no room for
> romanticising the movements whiel they are incompl,ete decline otherwise we
> won';t be in postion to say what is the state of our movements so that we
> can derive correct strategies and tactics for our wayforward. If we continue
> to romanticise our movements we will always apply wrong strategies and
> tactics and we won't ever know as at what stage our the development our
> movements is, and that is a recipe for dissaster.
>
> I think those who write about the movements should reflect the truth if we
> are to build an alternative revolutionary mass movements in South Africa. In
> conclussion, it is clear that all of our movements are in a complete
> decline, shrinking in numbers, no proper organisational structures to
> sustain our movements, they are very sectarian, unable to build a national
> character of their struggles. This is irrespective of the current service
> delivery revolts tat engulf the country at the moment, but even the current
> revolts have not come at any nearer to building a national character of
> their struggles, let alone coordination. What we currently see id the
> building of artificial networks and united fronts built by the Left that
> I regard them as substitute for the working class organisations as these are
> not derived in struggles.
>
> Lastly, my interest in these debates is to get fruitful and meaningful
> analysis that begins to reflect the true nature of our movements to be able
> to chart a better wayfoward for socialist project. It is also unhealthy for
> the academia to just defend an unjust, unhealthy situation in our movements
> and the academia should learn to take part in the actual struggles to be
> able to reflect correctly about the community struggles.
>
> Revolutionary Greetings.
> Mzi (ILRIG/SMI)
>
> ________________________________
>  From: debate-list-bounces at fahamu.org
> [mailto:debate-list-bounces at fahamu.org] On Behalf Of Mandisi
> Sent: 16 April 2012 12:11 PM
> To: debate-list at fahamu.org
> Subject: Re: [Debate] I Thus Caught That Colonial Mind-Set At Work
>
> hello
>
> are you talking to me?
>
> if you are, am not sure how you expect me to take you seriously when you
> seem to insinuation that the four articles I've submitted here are 'bitchy'.
> how is the critical review I've done on Bohmke's work different to what you
> do for a living?
>
> Mandisi
>
>
>
>
> On 16 April 2012 17:54, David Everatt <David at everatt.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> I don’t know any of the personalities or your sub-currents of
>> who-said-what so forgive me for not being able to grasp all that, which
>> seems to be pertinent if bitchy (and thus enormously readable). What I am
>> wondering is, what is a ‘Black social movement’, which all of you (I think)
>> have referred to? Sometime they are just social movements; then they appear
>> as South African social movements; and then they appear again as Black (your
>> upper case) social movements. I get the point that white
>> domination/manipulation/whatever is being battled over, but are these
>> movements being defined, or defining themselves, in racial terms? Are we
>> really heading down that path?
>>
>> de
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Heinrich Bohmke <bohmke at gmail.com>
>>
>> Reply-To: Debate is a listserve that attempts to promote information and
>> analyses of interest to the independent left in South and Southern Africa
>> <debate-list at fahamu.org>
>> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:19:13 +0100
>> To: Anna Majavu <annamajavu at gmail.com>
>> Cc: Debate is a listserve that attempts to promote information and
>> analyses of interest to the independent left in South and Southern Africa
>> <debate-list at fahamu.org>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Debate] I Thus Caught That Colonial Mind-Set At Work
>>
>>  It is mainly a pity
>> > for you because you are now typecasting yourself as an over-privileged
>> > white South African who frequently writes very demeaning things about
>> > Black people in the guise of your self-appointed role as the
>> > 'de-romanticiser' of Black movements. Yes there are a few people who
>> > buy your arguments, but they are very few and if you reflect on their
>> > motives, you will surely notice that they too are people who are not
>> > content to let Black township folks run their own movements.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Debate-list mailing list
>> Debate-list at fahamu.org
>> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Debate-list mailing list
> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
>