Are Indian, Coloured and White people really African? The question of who is an African, who could or could not be an African, was sharply raised in post-apartheid South Africa in  former president Thabo Mbeki’s epic “I am an African” speech, delivered on the occasion of the Constitutional Assembly's passage of a new constitution in 1996. This personal identity issue has once again arisen in a recently reported incident in which a Western Cape teacher, Glen Snyman, was accused of committing a “crime” for stating in a job application that he is an African, instead of classifying himself as coloured. 

 

 

This is one of the indicators of widening chasms between non-racial aspirations espoused in the Constitution and the continued reality of racialised colonial, class and gender inequalities. Increasingly, these raise an important question of how we should build a non-racial South Africa, in which being an African will not be defined in terms of skin colour. There have been two main competing conceptions of who is an African. One identifies Africans by race and genealogical origin. The other, what Ali Mazrui referred to as “Africans of the soil”, identifies Africans by geographical location in Africa regardless of race akin to the Freedom Charter. 

 

Colonialism defined Africans in racial and ethnic terms to exclude what it considered pre-colonial indigenous Africans. Asians (largely Indians) and Coloured were also excluded from being Africans, but classified as black. These classifications were indexes to determine and justify allocation not only of political rights, but economic resources such as access to land, social welfare and employment. Black people were differentially incorporated in the colonial power structure, with Africans at the bottom of the colonial ladder. Africans (as colonially defined) were not only denied supervisory or senior managerial roles but were also subjected to Bantu education – the  most inferior and underfunded education. In that racialised class structure, Indian South Africans could operate businesses on the outskirts of towns and cities. 

 

Some amongst the colonisers and colonised adopted exclusive nationalist visions of who belongs to South Africa and who is an African. Narrow African nationalism defined Africanness to the exclusion of white South Africans, captured in the slogan - Africa for Africans. Because of the continuation of racialised class inequalities, exclusive African nationalism is still appealing to the historical victims of colonialism and apartheid. By the same token, exclusive white nationalism still appeals to sections of white Africans. It enables some fellow white compatriots to rationalize and defend colonially accumulated power and privileges. 

 

Colonialism further divided Africans into ethnic groups and later placed them under Bantustan administrations that promoted and reinforced narrow ethnic consciousness and pre- colonial and colonial patriarchy. The mono-ethnic spatial spaces live long in post-apartheid South Africa, which continue to set the material basis for political ethnic consciousness and mobilization. A minority of white settlers like Hendrik Biebouw identified themselves as Africans. In Biebouw’s case, this took place in the year 1707. He would later be followed by others calling themselves Africans and developed an African language which is today known as Afrikaans. 

 

Amongst the oppressed, an inclusive notion of an African is captured in the Freedom Charter statement: “South Africa belongs to all who live in it…” The Charter identifies anyone born and bred within South Africa’s geographical boundaries as an African, regardless of race, gender and creed. It is worth noting that the Freedom Charter’s vision remains aspirational and is not yet fully realised. For instance, expressions of a common South African identity and patriotism in post-apartheid South Africa seem easier when we celebrate international sporting victories such as the Rugby World Cup. As soon as the sporting events pass, the fragile  non-racial national unity breaks to smithereens. But the material reality is that black people, particularly Africans (as colonially defined), still suffer the brunt of poverty, unemployment and inequality.  

 

There is, on the other end, an mistaken argument that only having Black Africans in the state machinery is correct because the private sector is white dominated. This thinking is fundamentally flawed, because it would rob the ANC of its leadership role in society. In whatever we do, including organisational composition of the ANC, we must prefigure the non-racial and non-sexist South Africa that we seek to build. Otherwise, there would be no difference between the non-racialists and narrow nationalists who define Africans in terms of colour. Being non-racial is not to ignore racial inequalities. 

 

Our aspirational definition of who is an African cannot be reduced to race or ethnicity because it would be tantamount to the self-same colonial racist classification that we seek to correct. Identifying Africans, in our aspirational definition, in racial terms excludes white South Africans who have never known any other country except South Africa. Most Africans in South Africa and on the continent are black, but not all Africans are black. Furthermore, since Africa is a cradle of humankind – the birthplace of homo-sapiens – how far back in time do you go to determine ancestry? 

 

Aspirational and colonial definitions should be used for different purposes. The colonially inherited definition should help us to recognise the current reality of colonial divisions of the past; and how to restore justice. How else do we know who suffered under political forms of racial domination and continue to do so, without using colonial classification?  Due to its colonial legacy, colour remains a proxy for inequality, poverty and unemployment in today’s South Africa. These inequalities cannot be solved solely through market mechanisms. It is in this context that the state has had to introduce Black Economic Empowerment and Affirmative Action to correct the historical injustices. As part of building nation-building, proficiency in at least two African languages should also be part of the Affirmative Action requirements for employment all South Africans. 

 

The inclusive and non-racial definition of who is an African should be used to reimagine a non-racial South Africa we seek to build here and now, without ignoring the past. Economic growth and transformation are essential in building a truly non-racial South Africa in which that both black and White Africans will be Africans in real terms.