Dr. Lionel Louw:

...hier teenwoordig te sien, en in besonder ons lede van ons paneel onder leierskap van die Premier en voorsitterskap van dr. Franklin Sonn. Baie hartlik welkom en ons vertrou dat u insiggewende periode saam met ons gaan hê.

Voordat ek vir Franklin aan u oorhandig, gaan ons vir Diane Ferris nooi om vir ons - sy het 'n oorspronklike gedig spesiaal vir hierdie geleentheid vir ons gedig; en sy gaan dit voordra en dan moet ons ongelukkig vir haar verskoon want sy moet optree by 'n ander geleentheid by die fees. Diane Ferris en dan Franklin Sonn as voorsitter vir die debat.

(Applous)

Diane Ferris:

Dames en here, soos u weet is ek 'n digter en ek voel dit my taak om kommentaar te lewer op die sosiale omstandighede hier en van oor die hele wêreld - van nou en van toe. Ek het hierdie gedig geskryf omdat ek gedink het dat dit tyd geword het om nou daaroor te praat, en is baie bly dat hierdie debat - that this debate is taking place today.

I call this "To Steve".

Waar is jy Steve Biko van Black Consciousness, swart-bewuste Steve?
Stuur my 'n sein,
hoor my fyn.
Hulle sê ek is bruin
maar my brein is getrain.
Ek is black en proud,
and I say it very loud.
Maar kom 1994
en ek staan by a different door.
Sommige sê ek is nie swart genoeg
om saam met by black broers te ploeg.
Wit was ek nog nooit
maar is ek dan nou swart ook ooit?
Praat daaroor
Weet ek sou jy sê.
Moenie vir omstredenheid gaan lê.
Jy't dit so mooi uitgespel
Black Consciousness sou ons van die bodem af optel
Saam-saam is ons onderdruk
en saam-saam sou ons die vryheidsdeur ooppluk.
Had ons maar die breinselle van jou kop,
breinselle so aaklig stukkend geskop,
sou ons nou nie so veel toetse dop.
Hulle sê ek is bruin maar my brein is getrain.
Ek is black en proud
and I say it very loud.
Baie dankie.

(Applous)

Dr. Franklin Sonn:

Diane, jou gediggie was 'n essensie van waaroor dit vandag gaan. So jy is 'n ware digter, die digter moet die essensie van dinge raakvat en jy het dit gedoen - great.

(Applous)

Dr. Sonn:

Ek staan vanmôre hier in vrees om hier te wees, maar netnou sê hulle ek jok, want ek is darem al gewoond aan 'n mikrofoon en podium. Premier, my vrees is eintlik, ek het Die Son hier gesien, ek weet nie of die man van Die Son hier is nie, want as hy is, dan weet ek nie of ons hom met sensuur hier toelaat nie, want sien, wat die probleem met Die Son is, vir my in besonder, is dat toe Die Son net so kort verskyn het met al sy stories, lekker en nie altyd so lekker, toe skreeu 'n ou vir my van agter 'n afleweringswa af, "Jy, Franklin Sonn, is reg man, is reg, Die Son is reg man, jou koerant is lekker, die goete moet uitkom, moet uitkom". So, ek wil net vir julle sê, ek is een van die mees beroemde manne in die gemeenskap, want ek is Die Son, ek sien alles.

Nogmaals baie dankie, en geagte Premier en Ministers teenwoordig, en geagte toehoorders, baie, baie dankie vir u teenwoordigheid en ons het ook nou al hierdie man leer ken in die jongste tyd veral vir 'n man wat die goed wat mense dink?wag eers Ebrahim, man laat ons eers 'n bietjie dink, hy sê nee nee sit dit daar buite, sit dit op die tafel dat ons daaroor praat. En dan sê hy gewoonlik, praat julle en ek luister, dan sal ek kommentaar lewer. En vandag is weer so 'n dag. Eintlik het hy die hele speech in sy kop, en dit is uiters belangrik en baie dankie vir hierdie gesprek en waarby Diane so mooi aangesluit het. En ek wil net aanvang deur 'n paar opmerkings maak om die geleentheid te rig voor ek die paneel aan u voorstel en hulle dan verwelkom. Die aangeleentheid wat hier aan die orde gestel word, is ras, dis wat dit is, in Diane se gediggie ook.

Alhoewel ras in wese 'n mite is, en wat ook in die gedagtegang van volke neerslag vind - 'n mite soos bloedvermenging, soos byvoorbeeld nie-blankheid en selfs kieme oordra en koppies wat nie geruil moet word nie, want wesenlik is ras ook gekoppel aan selfs die oordraging van kieme. En dit is 'n sterk aangeleerde manier, waarop veral die Westerse, dit is 'n Westerse konsep, kollektiewe sosiale gedrag en samelewing-patrone georden het en wat op voorkoms, kleur en die indeling daarvolgens uitgeloop het. Dit het erge sosiale wanpraktyke soos diskriminasie, groep-onderdrukking, waarvan slawerny die ergste is, tot gevolg gehad. En ek dink baie keer in die Kaap voel mense ras aan in die grade waartoe ons voorouers dit ervaar het. Ons van die Karoo het nie slawerny ervaar nie. Ons ander kom met die agtergrond van slawerny en daarom is ons agtergrondservarings van rassisme ook anders.

Allerhande regverdelings, gewoonlik ook mites, word gebruik om ras te regverdig en dit strek veral die Christelike kerk, tot groot oneer in ons land by name, veral die NG Kerk, dat hierdie Christus-onteerde gebruik van rassisme steeds binne die NG Kerk geduld word, selfs verdedig word en in volle swang is. Die Rooms Katolieke Kerk, tot hulle eer, het sedert die Pous, die 9de en 11de, uitspraak teen rassisme ook in die Kerk verklaar. Die Moslem-gemeenskap, die Islam se eie weersin in die Weste is ook in groot mate gebaseer op die rassisme van die Weste en Christen-Westerlinge voel baie keer verdeeld as gevolg van hulle eie simpatie met Islam vir die rassisme wat hulle ervaar, alhoewel uit 'n Christelike hoek.

In Rusland, met hulle 150 etniese groepe, ook wat mense nie altyd weet nie, Rusland het 150 etniese groepe, swart en wit. Rusland het rassisme verbied in sy 1936 Grondwet, en alle rasse-opvattings en -gebruike ook verbied. Die aantrekkingskrag van die kommunisme vir swart vryheidsbewegings oral in Afrika en ook in die ANC was grotendeels die gevolg daarvan dat rasse-onderskeidings by die Kommuniste in wese nie bestaan nie. 'n Kommunis, is 'n Kommunis, is 'n Kommunis.

Rassisme is egter steeds waar en lewendig in die VSA, ek weet dit, baie baie lewendig in die VSA. In Engeland, Duitsland, maar ook in Suid-Afrika ten spyte van ons Grondwet. Dit bevoordeel en benadeel terselfdertyd, dit doen dit op arbitrêre wyse en dit verdruk en verontmenslik. WEB du Bois het in 1903 in sy Souls of Black Folk te kenne gegee, hy was een van die grootste swart denkers van die begin van die twintigste eeu. The race question will be the issue of the 20th century. Die kleurslagboom waarna WEB du Bois verwys het tot skande, is steeds die issue, is steeds die issue van die 21st century, soos HV Hodson dit ook in 1950 uitgedruk het:
"There are two problems in world politics today - het hy gesien - which transcends all others, they are the struggle between what he called, Communism and World democracy on the one hand and the problem of race." In wat die kwessie van ras so pertinent en sentraal maak, is net die noem van die woord ras, laat mense skrik, want hulle weet aan ras is gekoppel sonde, verontmensliking, maar ook groot sensitiwiteit, iets wat, as ek dit mag sê uit die stoel uit, wat jou gewone Afrikaner nie van wil hoor nie, moet jy nou weer van ras praat. Hulle word baie ontsteld as jy daaroor praat. Nie net hier nie, maar in Amerika erger, as jy hierdie onderwerp, Premier, aanspreek in Amerika, kan jy seker wees die dinner party is oor. Must you always go back to the past, can't we look forward, when are you people going to learn that we now don't have this anymore.

Die vraag wat die Premier vanoggend wil stel, het ons dit nie meer nie of het ons dit nog steeds? Ons is vandag steeds nie daarvan vry nie en alhoewel ons Grondwet dit verbied, word die kleurslagboom steeds kwistig aangewend en word kleur en etniese onderskeid steeds negatief in ons samelewing aangewend. En die vraag wat die Premier wil stel, word dit nou van eenkant of word dit van albei kante af aangewend? Aan die eenkant van die kleurlyn, en miskien die belangrikste stelling wat hy reken ons moet maak om hierdie onderwerp wat so diep in ons gemeenskap in die Weste, nie in Suid-Afrika nie, in die Weste ingegrawe is, is die volgende: Dat die kleurlyn waarvan WEB du Bois gepraat het, is daar aan die eenkant van die kleurlyn - the colour line - want baie keer sê Afrikaners - julle is mos nou deel van ons, veral in die Afrikaanse konteks, julle is ook Afrikaners, julle is ons mense.

Dan word hulle kwaad as ons sê wag so bietjie, kom ons gesels eers daaroor, want daar is 'n kleurlyn - 'n kleurslagboom - aan die een kant is daar wit etniese groepe: Afrikaners, Jode, Portugese en Grieke, you name it. En dan is daar aan die anderkant, swart groepe, waarna Diane ook verwys het, wat ook nie homogeen is nie, die wit groepe is nie homogeen nie, swartes ervaar die wittes as homogeen, maar hulle is nie. Die swart groepe is ook nie homogeen nie, en die bruinmense is deel van die hetrogene swart groep. En dit baie keer moet ons vir ons swart broers sê, en dit is ook 'n item wat die Premier hierby ons wil aansluit. Ons moet vir ons swart broers sê, of julle daarvan hou of nie, ons is deel van die hetrogene swart groep.

En baie keer het hierdie gemeenskap meer gely as daar so iets is, as byvoorbeeld by wyse van slawerny. Die mense wat slawerny ervaar het, was die swart groep genaamd bruin binne die hetrogene swart gemeenskap. Die swartmense het ook slawerny in 'n mindere mate ervaar en verduur, maar die Maleiers is die mense wat hierheen gebring is as slawe. En hulle het die verontmensliking daarvan ervaar. Intellektueel is die onderskeidings mites soos so baie bruinmense deur Afrikaners herinner word, soos wat ek netnou gesê het, julle moet nou ophou, julle is nou ons s'n, ons is nou almal saam. Hulle doen dit op grondslag van kultuur en dit is reg so, ons is Afrikaanse mense, en ons hoort bymekaar kultureel, maar ons het geskiedenis, en ons het belange wat ons plaas by die anderkant van die slagboom. Die bruinmense is sosiaal ekonomies erg benadeel en hulle is steeds besig om onder die apartheids-effek naamlik armoede en verarming gebuk te gaan.

En die swart/witslagboom bou hardnekkig voort op 'n soeke na gemene oorkant. En dan is daar hierdie fees - eintlik ook bedoel om 'n soeke te kry na die gemene deler oor die kleurlyn heen van wit Afrikaners en Afrikaanssprekende swartmense wat in ons taalbruik genoem word. Daar is mooi vordering en ons is trots daarop. Ons maak goeie vordering en Premier, onder jou leiding - veral omdat jy die goed aanspreek en vir ons 'n geleentheid gee om rustigheid daaroor te kry. Dit is teen hierdie agtergrond dat elemente van ras vanmôre aan die kaak gestel moet word en as ons een ding regkry, Premier, en ek dink, soos ek jou ken, lê dit ook vir jou na aan die hart, stel die goed aan die kaak, stel dit daar aan die lig, dat mense weet hoe lyk ras, en wat doen hy aan die nuwe Suid-Afrika, sodat ons hierdie mite en gebruik die nekslag kan toedien. En sodat ons kan vorder met die groot taak om ons nasionale projek, die bou van 'n nie-rassige demokratiese samelewing, as work in progress kan beskou. Ek wil sê en ek reken u sal met my saamstem, dat die swart gemeenskap wat in die konteks van die rasse-verskille, bruin genoem word, op hulle rus as gevolg van hulle geskiendenis, as gevolg van hulle genetiese samestelling en as gevolg van hulle plek in die samelewing, op hulle rus die verantwoordelikheid om nie-rassigheid te bou, en Premier ek wil vir jou sê, wat jy in die Wes-Kaap vandag doen, is eintlik om die slote te grawe van rassigheid en soos jy daai beendere uithaal uit die loopgrawe, kom daar swart liggame en wit liggame en bruin liggame ook, en daarom is hierdie gesprek histories en belangrik.

Ander etniese groepe, byvoorbeeld die Grieke, Jode het ook gekla, alhoewel hulle wit is, het ook gekla dat hulle word nie in die Staatsdiens opgeneem nie, hulle het dit ook ervaar. Witmense het nie almal toegang tot die Staatsdiens gekry nie, net een etniese groep binne die wit gemeenskap. En hulle het ook gevoel dat ekonomies, witmense in etniese groepe het gevoel dat daar ekonomies teen hulle, hulle sê ons is wit, maar nie Afrikaner genoeg nie, en hulle het ook diskriminasie ervaar. Die vraag wat vandag gevra moet word, Fanie, is of swart groepe soos bruinmense voel of hierdie bewind, dit is wat ons vandag moet vra, voel alle swart groepe of hierdie bewind, alhoewel hy nie-rassig aangesien word, en in die President van ons land se hart skroei en brand, daar is niks wat hom meer dryf as die nasionale projek, is hierdie beleid van nie-rassigheid, word dit bedryf deur ons politieke leiers en deur ons staat.

Dit is die vraag en hoe ervaar alle mense dit en veral alle swartmense, maar ek het nou die vraag na die eenkant gestel, en ten slotte wil ek nou die vraag na die anderkant stel, wat sê julle van 'n politieke party wat hom self opgee en gekenmerk word deur nie-rassigheid en verwerping van ras, maar as jy in die strate ry, wat sien jy? Die plakkate wat die politieke party bekendstel, wanneer jy deur die CBD's ry, dan is dit 'n blink wit mannetjie met 'n bruin leier, staan amper asof hulle verloof geraak het. En dan as jy in die townships ry, dan is die bruin leier alleen op die plakkaat. En dan as jy in die blanke gebiede ry, waar ons nou deesdae woon (gehoor lag), dit lyk vir my of julle my uitlag wil ek net sê dat ek en die Premier, waar ons bly, wie hang daar, net die wit blink mannetjie hang daar. Subtiel, buitekant is nie-rassig, die manier om stemme te werf suggereer dat dit steeds rassisme is. En dat mense eintlik in wese gemonster word na die stembus toe op grond steeds van kleur en rasse-oorwegings en die ergste van alles, nie sonder sukses nie, soos wat ons nou kort ervaar het, nie sonder sukses nie.

So, dames en here, as Co-Chair wil ek net vir u sê dat hierdie is een van die mees historiese gesprekke, dit is die eerste maal Premier, dat ons openlik hierdie dinge aanspreek en ek wil u aanmoedig, om in die openlikheid waarmee ek gepraat het en die openlikheid waarmee die paneel-deelnemers, hopelik gaan praat, dat u ook daarin sou deelneem en openlik sê, moenie huiwer nie, ons mense, die bruinmense hou nie maklik van hierdie gesprek nie, en ons is baie ontkennend, eerder dan om ontledend en eerlik daarmee te wees, want dit gaan nie die Premier help nie, want soos ek hom ken, sien hy hierdie gesprek vanmôre nie as 'n manier hoe ons praat nie, ons moet net die dinge bietjie aanspreek, maar hy wil hoor wat daar gesê word vanaf die vloer.

En dit is daarom nou vir my 'n groot voorreg om aan u bekend te stel, dr. Fanie du Toit. Nou Fanie du Toit is 'n kundige op diversiteit, met ander woorde die bou van nie-rassigheid en die bou van eenheid op grond van erkenning van etniese verskille, kultuurverskille en om mense gemak te gee binne die groter konteks van nie-rassigheid. Na dit volgende is 'n man wat nou op hierdie goed, en ek wil eintlik Lionel gelukwens dat jy vir Brian gevra het, kaalkop praat, hy het eintlik al sy hare vanoggend afgesny, nie dat hy soos David Piedt wil lyk nie, maar hy wil kaalkop praat en Brian jy, en ek wil net vir die mense sê, Brian kom uit 'n baie interessante agtergrond, hy het, as jy nie omgee nie Brian, die soort ontkennende nie-rassigheid wat diversiteit selfs miskien met die teelepeltjie ingekry vanaf kindsbeen af en eintlik die eerste storie wat ons gehoor het van nie-rassigheid het gekom uit die kader waarin sy pappie beweeg het. Sy pappie was 'n groot intellektuele en baie gerespekteerde persoon, met wie nie baie van ons altyd saamgestem het nie, maar dit is 'n teken van 'n intellektuele persoon as mense nie met hom saamstem nie. En dit is interessant hoe Brian self ontwikkel het, sy begrip vir hierdie aangeleenthede.

En dan het ons vir Mandla Maxongo, wat ons moet nog leer, I grew up in Queenstown, but I still struggle with the surnames. Mandla, he is the advisor to the Premier, nou ek het hom gevra of hy Afrikaans verstaan, ek weet nie of hy vir my gelieg het nie, hy het rondborstig gesê Ja, Ja. So ons gaan hom 'n bietjie toets vandag. Mandla het 'n baie interessante agtergrond, dames en here, hy het gewerk, behalwe vir sy akademiese agtergrond waarna ek nie nou verwys nie, het hy gewerk om sustainable human settlements op te bou, en om die moeilike taak van integrasie binne die swart gemeenskappe te vermag, want die swart gemeenskappe is nie homogeen nie, en dit het hy gedoen en daarom is hy eintlik in 'n baie goeie posisie geplaas om met ons te praat. Ja, ek dink dit is hulle, en ek gaan sommer sonder verdere ophou vir Fanie aan die woord stel. Dankie, Fanie:

(Applous)

Dr. Fanie du Toit

Dankie, Meneer die Voorsitter, Meneer die Premier, die laaste keer toe ek oor rassisme moes praat, so twee maande terug, was dit tipies wat in Kaapstad gebeur met 'n mens. Dit is 'n uitnodiging wat jy ontvang, via via via drie tot vier ander mense en op die einde eindig jy met die opdrag en dit was die Cosatu Streekkongres in die oploop na die verkiesing toe. En ek het nie geweet wat om te verwag nie. Met my laptoppie, met my PowerPoint presentation, my baadjie en goed is ek af na die Stadsaal toe, nie geweet of dit in die hoofsaal gaan wees of in 'n kamertjie agter nie. Toe ek instap, toe sien ek hier is baie groot moeilikheid, want die saal sit vol, propvol Cosatu delegates, maar daar is nie een wit gesig nie, net ek wat daar instap om oor rassisme te praat. Fanie du Toit, die ekspert op rassisme en wel, die eerste ding wat ek gedoen het, was om my PowerPoint presentation onder die stoel in te skuif, so met my hak dat niemand dit sien nie, die tweede wat ek gedoen het, was om my baadjie uit te trek, toe net vir die afvaardiging gesê, kyk ek het 'n get-away kar hier buitekant, hy is reg, hy is opgewarm, as daar enige moeilikheid is, ek is 'n bietjie nervous, en ek het voorsorgmaatreëls getref, ek wil ook sê dat ek kom as 'n ekspert in rassisme - nie in die eerste plek omdat ek dit professioneel bedryf nie, maar omdat ek opgegroei het waar ek opgegroei het. En omdat ek vir rassisme 'n neus ontwikkel het waar ek opgegroei het en toe begin die gesprek van daar af. En dit het op die ou einde 'n produktiewe gesprek geword.

Maar dit is die eerste wat ek vandag wil sê, ek kom nie as 'n deskundige in diversiteit, in die eerste plek omdat ek 'n paar boeke gelees het nie, maar juis omdat ek grootgeword het waar ek grootgeword het. En ek dink rassisme is in ons almal se bloed, op een of ander manier, en ons kan dit erken, ons kan dit beveg, maar ons kan nie lekker daarvan ontslae raak nie. Dit is iets wat ons oor 'n lang tydperk moet hanteer in ons lewens. Dit is die eerste wat ek wil sê, en dan Premier, oppad hiernatoe vanoggend, vroeg in Kaapstad, het 'n bestuurder wat my lughawe toegeneem het, 'n Moslem-persoon, vir my gevra nou wat gaan ek doen, ek sê toe dat ek gaan saam met die Premier daar in Oudtshoorn oor rassisme praat. Ek sien hy bly so 'n bietjie stil en dink oor hierdie saak, en hy sê ons Moslems is baie, baie trots dat ons 'n Premier het wat 'n Moslem is. Hy sê dit beteken vir ons gemeenskap baie, maar die Premier moet weet dat ons hom gaan uitstem as hy nie deliver nie, die Moslems gaan hom uitstem as hy nie deliver nie, hy sê toe want ons, hier kom die twist wat ek nie verwag het nie, hy sê ons is mos nie soos die swartes nie wat by Zuma staan deur dik en dun nie. En net daar dog ek dit is presies waaroor ons vandag gaan praat, die persepsies van mekaar op die Kaapse Vlakte.

Ek kan miskien net sê, ons weet almal dat Suid-Afrika vandag, 12 jaar terug, dit is nou 'n waarheid wat ons nie vir mekaar hoef te herhaal nie, 'n onerkenbare beter plek is as 12 jaar terug, ons weet dit. En tog hoor 'n mens meer en meer gereeld stellings soos die volgende; ek voel nie meer ek behoort meer in die Wes-Kaap nie, ek is onder Tafelberg gebore, ek ken nie 'n ander tuiste nie. Die Wes-Kaap is 'n tuiste vir almal, hoor ek, maar van waar ek sit lyk dit of sommige meer gelyk is as ander. Ek het die bevrydingstryd ondersteun, en ek het 'n swaar prys betaal, maar ek het dit gedoen om 'n nie-rassige samelewing te skep en om weg te beweeg van die vloek van apartheid waar ek altyd 'n tweede klas burger was, maar nou leef ek weer in 'n samelewing wat volgens ras gerangskik is.

En ek is teleurgesteld, ek voel gedrop, ek voel uitgeskuif, my kinders is op 16 uit die skool uit, wat baat 'n matriek as daar nie werk is nie, en selfs al was daar werk, staan ek agter in die ry, agter die swartmense wat nou die regering se simpatie geniet en agter die witmense met hulle beter geleenthede en meer geld, ek voel nie tuis nie en dit in my eie land. Dit is 'n gevoel wat ons wel optel, en ek dink dit is 'n gevoel wat ons vir mekaar moet erken, die laaste keer toe Franklin Sonn by ons Instituut gepraat het, het ons vir hom gevra om oor Afrikaner Nasionalisme te kom praat, het hy gesê hy voel nou soos die Kleurling-kenners van die sewentigerjare. Ek wil nie klink soos 'n Kleurling-kenner van die sewentigerjare nie, maar ek weet die soort politieke vervreemding wat ons raaksien in die bruin gemeenskap geld ook vir die wit gemeenskap. Daar is nie buitestaanders vir die ras-debat in Kaapstad en Wes-Kaap nie; ons is almal op een of ander manier betrokke.

Ek gaan net twee kort opmerkings maak om mee af te sluit. Die eerste is dit, dat biologies gesprokke, dit het die Voorsitter reeds gesê, is ras 'n mite. Sedert die vyftigerjare, u weet, ek herinner u net weer daaraan, dat ras 'n ontroubare kriterium is waarvolgens mense in groepe ingedeel word, genetiese verskille binne rassegroepe is net so groot soos genetiese verskille tussen rassegroepe. Wilmot James en ander wys vir ons hoe verstrengel ons gene is, en dat daar 'n onafgebroke kriterium in velkleur en voorkoms is, waar geen duidelike lyne getrek kan word nie. Ras is 'n biologiese mite; sociologies, sosiaal is dit egter steeds 'n euwel op die Kaapse Vlakte, in Kaapstad en die Wes-Kaap, want rassisme laat hom nie so maklik deur 'n paar feite van stryk bring nie, want ras is ook 'n handige konsep, want ras help ons en dit is die punt wat ek hier wil maak, om gemeenskappies te bou waarin ons tuis voel.

As die Premier ons uitnooi om in die Wes-Kaap tuis te voel, wat ras doen, is dit maak dit vir ons moontlik om 'n gemeenskap te bou waarin ons tuis voel, en om hierdie mini-wêreldjies in stand te hou ten spyte van kompetisie. Daarom bly dit 'n sosiale werklikheid en daarom die dag as ons meng, en ons saam skool toe gaan, saam werk en in die aand trek ons terug na ons ras-gedefinieerde woonbuurte en ons kyk na mekaar oor die spoorlyn, oor die heining en oor die pad en ons skinder oor mekaar. Dit is hoekom stereotipes steeds bestaan en steeds floreer, is hierdie isolasie op 'n sosiale vlak. Maar derdens is ras 'n politieke werklikheid, dit is 'n biologiese mite, dit is 'n sosiale euwel, maar dit is ook 'n politieke werklikheid en enige politikus wat dit sou ignoreer, sou dit doen tot sy eie nadeel. Prof. Danie Nabadeo skryf uit 'n Oegandese hoek, wanneer hy sê dat die volgende, en ek gebruik African hier in die mees inklusiewe sin van die woord.

"Kingship lies at the heart of the African politics and a leader is expected to deliver more than knowledge, management capacity and leadership skills. There is a longing for kingship, voters are looking for a sense of trust. This is granted in the assumption that one is better able than someone else who is ever gifted. Contemporary politics in Africa still carries this, Presidents and Leaders who ignore and fail to draw leaders from different tribes and communities into Government, are often required to pay a high price. Grassroot Africans are prepared to overlook a lot of leadership mistakes, if they feel a politcal leader understands their ways and identifies with their customs. They want to see their leaders in traditional dress, participating in their rituals and singing their songs. When this is not there, they are unhappy. A father is expected to care for his family; a mother must nourish her own."

As ons Africans, ons landsburgers, uitnooi om deel te word aan die openbare lewe, vra ons hulle eintlik om die veilige omgewing van stam en gemeenskap agter te laat en deel te word van 'n baie meer bedreigende omgewing, oorheers deur die taal van menseregte en die genadelose kompetisie van besigheid. Dit is onafwendbaar, maar hoe bestuur ons hierdie proses, hoe oorreed ons Suid-Afrikaners om hulle burgerskap op te neem en 'n verantwoordelike rol binne en buite hulle gemeenskap te speel. Ek dink waarskynlik nie so goed nie, as ons kyk na die onvermoë van Wes-Kaapse politiek om rasse-grense af te breek. Of gemeenskapleiers nou op die Cape Flats sit of op Stellenbosch; om die vrese van hulle mense te verwoord is hulle taak, maar hulle kan dit alleen doen as hulle 'n dubbele boodskap stuur. Ons heg waarde aan ons identiteit, maar ons soek 'n gemeenskaplike oplossing, ons veg vir ons regte, maar ons verdedig ook die regte van ander mense, ons mobiliseer maar ons isoleer nie. Die 'ek is nie swart genoeg nie'-argument sal nooit regtig empatie vind in die breë gemeenskap van Suid-Afrika nie, as die gene wat dit gebruik nie ook begrip toon waarin groepe wat in die derde klas gery het, vandag deur regstellende aksie baat behoort te vind nie. Indien die empatie nie daar is nie en die breë agenda nie daar is nie, sal so 'n argument nie weerklank vind nie.

En net heel laaste, pasop vir stereotypes. By die Instituut vir Geregtigheid en Versoening, waar ek werk, het ons 'n ding met die naam 'n rekonsiliasie-barometer wat aandui dat die groep wat nasionaal die grootste stap na verdraagsaamheid gegee het die afgelope paar jare, is inderdaad die bruin groep.

Baie dankie.

(Applous)

Brian Slingers:

In the interest of non-racism and celebration of diversity I'll bring myself, Person Chair, to address the house in English.

There has been a number of views that have been expressed, ladies and gentleman, both by the Chair and by Fanie, which I agree with and a number of them I disagree with, and I want to speak very, very briefly because, as I understood Lionel, the purpose was really to engage the floor - so, that's an excuse for not preparing a paper.

I think I want to join the Chair in congratulating the Premier on raising this morning an issue in a bold way, a critical issue in a bold way. I think, however, in an environment like ours we have to be very careful with this thing. I am almost tempted to say, Person Chair, that in an environment like this we have to be very careful with this thing. Now, the Person Chair, in introducing me, made reference to my father in a generous way and to the political history that my father represents. He also made the point that my father was an intellectual and that at least relieves me of having to carry the same burden. So, any questions you might have that I cannot answer, I certainly will give you his telephone number.

You see, I make the point Person Chair, because the struggle against racism in this country and around the world is an old struggle. It is not particular to South Africa and I think that point has been made, but it's an old struggle. The notion of the fact that we are all people with a common humanity is not some epiphany that we can attribute to Archbishop Tutu on the steps of the City Hall. That notion has been with us for a long time. And it has expressed itself variously. It has expressed itself in strident political programmes across the world, in this country, in the Freedom Charter of the ANC and before that in the 10-point programme of the Unity Movement, and even before that, and even before that, in the articulations of the progressive education movement.

So, it's an old thing. The realisation that to categorise people by dint of what they appear to look like, is nothing short of crude barbarism and has been with us for a long, long time. And I belabour the point, Person Chair, because I think that this debate becomes helpful when we understand that as the axiom. It becomes helpful when we depart from that position, not when we try and waste our time, with respect, by trying to prove that position. I think enough has been written about that for us to accept that that is a good starting point.

But we have a problem in South Africa. We have a problem which comes from the fact that in our engagement of the struggle against racism, and I speak specifically of the struggle against racism, the anti-racist and non-racist struggle, the problem we have is that the discourse we have had in progressive movement around this stuff has been facile. And I am going to talk a bit about that facile nature of our discourse in a moment. I believe that the notion of "rainbowism", the notion of a common humanity is axiomatic, and I can understand why as South Africans we get so very excited about it. It is, ladies and gentlemen, in my view, because we come from a society that has been fractured, a society that has had a great deal of human tragedy, human division, as a consequence of the fact that this was not accepted as an axiom. So I can understand why we obsess about it.

"Rainbowism" reflects itself all over these days, all over - on the walls of government offices, on the walls of schools, I see, and more particularly, and interestingly enough on the walls of corporate organisations. In one form or the other, there is some strenuous attempt made by some idiot or the other to try and establish that in fact we are a non-racist organisation, as though that were news. I think we need to think about that one to begin.

And, central to that notion, is the notion of a commonality, so speakers on this subject - and here I'm going to touch on what Fanie spoke about - tend to say we have a common humanity. People here at the "fees" talk about the fact that there is a common humanity and we all absolutely celebrate this common humanity. I, this morning, want to act as an agent provocateur, Person Chair. I want to say that we need to think beyond the common reality. The notion of a common humanity, I think I understand. I understand why we get excited about it, but I think it occasions a very bland understanding and engagement of human beings. The notion of a common reality, I think, reduces human beings rather than enables them.

Commonalities, sadly, in my view, do not bring sufficient robust challenge to the social power bases and hierarchies that govern our society. They provide great excuses for people to do all sorts of things. It is very interesting, Comrade Chair, who talks about non-racism these days. My own experience is that the only people who do talk non-racism are whites typically. They are the only ones who invoke non-racism. That's my own experience. But perhaps it is a jaundiced experience. My point at the moment is that the notion of a common humanity or commonality is, I think, fairly bland and it masks social power struggles, social power bases, and so on. But I think, equally importantly, the notion of common humanities serve to mask the issues that are central to the engagement of humanity, I call that thing "'n wonderlike menslikheid", which I happen to know is a very, very important part of the Premier's Home for All campaign. The celebration of "'n wonderlike menslikheid" is masked by the notion of a common reality.

But, more particularly, what is masked is something that the Chair spoke about but the last speaker did not. What is masked is the issue of identity - of human identity. Not of ethnic caricature but of human identity. And so I want to talk a bit about identity before I go to my last point. You see, the struggle against racism in South Africa, in my view, has significantly dis-enabled and underdeveloped the discussion around identity. In fact, I found it so interesting that when the Chair was telling the story about the man who took him to the airport this morning, I cringed, because I am unable, I don't have sufficient development as a human being, to be able to engage intelligently with the discussion around identity. And I don't think that I'm atypical. I think it's a problem that we all have. And I think in many ways it's a problem that results from our engagement of a struggle against racism and seeing that as being synonymous with a non-discussion around identity.

I think we need to liberate ourselves and liberate people generally to engage with the issues of identity more robustly. Or, as I prefer to put it, to liberate the issue of identity from the tyranny of careful politically correct conversation. Because that tyranny will never enable any sense of "'n wonderlike menslikheid"; that tyranny will never enable Home for All to be anything but an idiotic advertising slogan. And that is, I think, a point that we need to dwell on for a moment.

You see, I believe that the notion of identity and a sense of identity, enables, as I have already said, this "menslikheid". But, I think to spell that out, what it means for me, is that it enables human beings to find their point of grounding, and it's the point of grounding that enables the human condition in the first instance. So when Diane Ferris read that poem earlier on, you know the interesting thing was, Franklin, that she was not trying to be white. Nor yet was she trying to be Xhosa. Nor yet was she trying to be Zulu, and mercifully she wasn't trying to be a rainbow South African. What an idiotic concept. She was just being Diane Ferris in her full wonder. And that's because of a sense of an engagement of her "eie wonderlike menslikheid", her own sense of identity. You see that identity, as it was demonstrated, gave her voice, and I mean voice in the most profound sense of the word, voice, voice, the thing that enables people to create, the thing that enables people to analyse, the thing that enables people to have conversations with themselves and others. It gave her voice. It gave her the human creativity. It gave her a sense of an ability to innovate and it gave her the ability to think. In other words, it gave her a sense of her full humanity, that sense of identity.

And, of course, South Africa is a huge problem area because what has happened under apartheid, of course, is that what people have done, is they have accorded positive and negative values to people who have different identities. But I think what we need to do now, is to understand that liberation must mean, must mean, the ability to ensure that every single human being is affirmed, every single human being is celebrated, every single human being is engaged, not on the basis of some broad policy statements that we might make as politicians or as business people, or as educators, or as whatever it might be, but on the basis of understanding the profound power of human beings themselves.

I think we must further liberate people from the tyranny of a facile and sanitised understanding of a non-racist democracy in short. And give that democracy, hard fought as it's often described, a new vibrancy and a new dynamism by enabling people to liberate and engage with their own sense of what it is that defines them. Because what it is that defines them is what you might want to call their identity.

I am a little concerned, I must share with you, Premier, that - and I mean this with respect to the previous two speakers - that the title of this particular speech, this particular discussion, I should say, appears to be construed as a discussion about coloured people. Now mercifully I have never been a coloured person, and mercifully I don't know any coloured people - mercifully. But I have a wonderful sense of who I am. And you can call that what you like. So I am a little concerned about this. But, if I am going to indulge the house for a moment, I notice that this issue of identity in respect of coloured people is a particularly problematic one because their entire lives have been spent by trying to, because of the social construct, desperately be something other than just who they are.

It seems Zulu people don't have this problem. Xhosa people don't have the problem. Jews appear not to have this problem. Tswana people don't have the problem. Afrikaners clearly don't have this problem. Coloured people appear to be - what Franklin said earlier - "julle is mos nou deel van ons" - what chauvinism, eh? What chauvinism - if you say to people - "julle is mos nou deel van ons". Of course coloured people don't do themselves a favour because they have never been able to give expression to that thing and that's what we have got to try - and try and move.

I suspect that what we have got to try and do in the Western Cape, Premier, is to try and ensure that in peoples' engagement with their identity, we don't give too much consideration for doing this for the sake of tourists, but we do this for the sake of the dignity, the person and the soul of the human beings involved. We don't seem to have learnt that lesson. The only expression that people can give to their sense of identity is some caricatured sense. But I'll talk about caricature in a moment.

I want to end, ladies and gentlemen, by saying - and I think I echo the view of both previous speakers - that the topic which the Premier has invited us to consider this morning is indeed profound and bold because in my view it has one consequence - it says, "nie swart genoeg nie, nie wit genoeg nie, maar wel mens genoeg". I suspect that what happens in that instance, ladies and gentlemen, is that the Premier is inviting us to deepen our own struggle against racism, to make sure that we become part of a new social movement that moves beyond the facile nature of "rainbowism", that begins to struggle stridently against caricature of everybody, of anyone, because it's a very interesting thing that happens with caricature, you see, when you caricature people, you absolutely reduce their humanity - and people tend to be caricatured as a consequence of our own bizarre and savage history - a new social movement that takes up a struggle against invisibility, a social movement that allows people to be seen and to be heard because they are people and for no other reason. And, finally, a social movement that takes up a strident struggle against the barbarism of social disregard.

And, if you don't know what I mean, I invite you to walk the streets of Oudtshoorn and just to have a look at the consequences, the barbaric consequences of social disregard. That, for me, is what the Premier's invitation is, to take up such a struggle. And now, of course - I am going to end it Franklin - now what we must say, is - what is the consequence of that - where does that take us? Well, I think it enables us to give a new vibrancy to the democracy, but in my terms it enables us to do something even more profound than that - and perhaps it's effective that we're sitting and talking about this at a "kunstefees" - it enables us to intelligently answer the question: "Jy! Wie sien jy vir my, wie sien jy vir my?" Because when you answer the question, you see, you have taken an enormous leap towards being a civilised human being.

Thank you.

Mandla Maxongo:

Enkosi Chair. Thank you very much. Premier and Mr. Sonn, ladies and gentlemen, I, you know when listening to the previous speakers, I just found it difficult to know where to start, but I think I must start by saying, I have seen this a number of times being used, "nie swart genoeg, nie wit genoeg nie", and it has always been around an attempt to explain government policies and programmes. I just want to say that my understanding is that it is not true. That is not what informs any government programme. And we can elaborate on that. I think the approach is that of a developmental state which recognises the legacy that we come from. A developmental state that recognises that issues of housing, issues of health, safety and security, education, etc, etc, cannot just be seen without recognising the fact that they have been impacted upon by the legacy that we come from which affected us in various, in varying degrees, based on this issue of race.

However, what has been important was to make sure that we use objective criteria. To say, yes, there has been racial discrimination, but what are the indicators, what are the levels of disadvantage that different people in South Africa face? And it has not only been on the basis of race, it has also been on the basis of the status of permanency. We have seen also that others that have been more permanent in other areas than others, have had also issues to raise to say what about the bonus? Because now the attention is going to the migrants, to those that come from the Eastern Cape - so, we must not then be fooled by this easy explanation that it is because of race.

I think the choice that we need to make is whether we see ourselves as victims or victors. I believe that my starting point is that we must see ourselves as people that have actually overcome the system of racism, who now have to implement programmes that will not be informed by racism, but by the objective realities that people find themselves in. We have to take control of our own destiny. We must not allow others - and I agree with the previous speakers - we must not allow others to define our situation, or to even determine our destiny. We must decide for ourselves that we have, all of us, have a rightful place in this province. Where there is a programme, we must, in that programme, we must demand our rightful participation in that programme, not on the basis of the race that we appear to be, but on the basis of the fact that we are full citizens and have overcome, all of us collectively, the legacy of apartheid. We are all victors and we have every right to participate in any programme as contributors.

Chair, I, as a Tembu, I just want to give a perspective from the point of view of a Tembu man who has got many wives. The children coming from that Tembu man, one from the first wife, the second wife, the third wife, and so on, up to the seventh wife, they always have a choice when they become adults, especially men. I'm coming from that, my father had more than one wife, but when you become a man you have to choose whether you identify yourself with the category - or the house of your mother, or whether you identify yourself as a son, a rightful son of this family, of this father, because the father is the uniting point.

So you would find, for example, people fighting, saying - you know - the rightful heir must be that one, and not that one - but it is up to the children themselves to decide what is it that can unite them and strengthen the family and build a legacy.

I think in this particular discourse, around this issue of race, which is being used to define us - we must decide for ourselves - do we want to be the rightful heirs of this country, of this democracy, or do we prefer to be divided and to fight amongst ourselves as to who must have the lion's share? In regard to this issue of colour, you know, I am actually pleased that Brian raised this issue about whether one must see oneself as a coloured. I have never subscribed to that. Ever since 1969, maybe before I used to, but from 1969 I changed my paradigm, I saw the world in a different way. I know many people, many famous people who were born of a Xhosa mother and a Scots or a German father, in the Eastern Cape, but because these people are not married that son took the surname of the mother, which is the tradition. You know, there were road-workers all over there, people working on the roads, engineers, and they were having relationships. Those people never defined themselves as coloureds or anything. If you were from Gaba, which is my clan, that child will take the Gaba clan name. They never saw themselves as anything else because there was no such thing as - that because you look fair - because you are lighter - if in terms of the tradition you belong to that family, you belong there.

So, I think people have got to maybe remember some of those. I know some very famous sons of South Africa that come from that. But what we cannot ignore, in terms of the distribution, which is what we seem to be fighting about, whenever this issue comes up, is that whether it was in housing, whether it was in employment, whether it was in education, the previous system made sure that others of a different colour had maybe a much bigger subsidy for education than others, others that - there were preferential policies that made sure that if I wanted to work, like in my case, as a qualified person, I had to be registered as a labourer in order for the employer to take me on because the policy just did not allow them to employ me - because I was told then to go to the Labour Department in Barrack Street where the job would be announced and to say - is there anybody else of this particular colour that wants this job - and if that person comes, the job is taken away from me and given to somebody else. We have got to accept that.

However, we cannot determine what we do on the basis of that. So the task - I am actually getting to the end, because I did not prepare a long paper here because I am more interested in the engagement - but, the task of the democratic state, is to focus on clear targets to address this legacy. To have programmes that are targeted and to have timeframes and milestones to bring our people to an acceptable level of the quality of life so that we can bring an end to this distraction that is sometimes used to divide us and rule us.

We have to assert ourselves based on the strength that we have, because all of us, whether we have got strength as bricklayers, whether we have got strength as carpenters, because we have got this experience, whether we have got strength as teachers, we have got to assert ourselves on the basis of that strength, on the same basis that I have seen some very good educators and school managers turning around some of the schools in the townships through good management without looking at the colour of their skin, and without saying - I cannot work in that school because I am not that particular race.

We have to acknowledge our proud tradition and contribute towards the struggle for freedom.

Thank you Chair.

Dr. Sonn:

Dames en here, baie dankie, dit was nou 'n mondvol. Baie dankie vir u geduld, thank you for your patience, I think it was a very good presentation. Soos die ouderling gesê het in ons kerk, ek hoop nie julle is nou toe-gespreek nie. Kan ek net vir die personeel vra, hulle kan nou die etes bedien, die hoofmaal bedien, ek dink nie hulle weet dit nie. Tweedens, ons gaan nou gesprek hê en onmiddellik ná die ete wanneer daar stilte is, so gou as moontlik asseblief, dan wil ons graag hê die Premier moet vir ons saamvat en soos dit sy gebruik is, rigting aandui. Hy gaan nou vir my sê, ek dui nie rigting aan nie, julle doen dit vir my, maar ons wag daarop, Premier.

Nou dames en here, ek wil u graag versoek, moet asseblief nie voor halftwee loop nie, want ons hoop dan net om na die Premier saamgevat het, hoop ons om af te sluit. So skelmpies, en ek gebruik die woord skelmpies, het MEC Leonard Ramatlakane ingesluip want hy woon net anderkant die berg. En ook vir MEC Tasneem Essop, baie dankie vir julle teenwoordigheid. Hier is vyf Ministers van die Wes-Kaap hier teenwoordig en ons is baie geërd. Die vloer is oop, u kan praat, baie dankie, doen dit asseblief met vrymoedigheid. Baie dankie, sê net u naam asseblief, meneer. Praat in enige taal asseblief, enige van die 11 landstale.

From the floor:

Premier, ek wil graag aansluit by wat u gisteraand gesê het. Dit is 'n toespraak wat my persoonlik baie diep getref het, ek het lanklaas 'n politikus so direk gehoor praat en ek waardeer dit opreg. Ek wil graag begin deur vir u te sê dat ek onlangs na 'n toespraak geluister het van 'n bioloog van Amerika wat gesê het in die wetenskap, hoe jy wil hê iets moet wees, is irrelevant, dit is hoe die feite is. As jy die lat moes insit en jy wil hom rooi hê en hy word blou, dan help dit nie jy wil hom rooi hê nie, hy is blou, dis dit. Ek het voorheen al die opmerking gemaak en ek doen dit graag op hierdie forum weer, ek dink dat ons in die Wes-Kaap, omdat ons in Suid-Afrika is en op hierdie planeet is, is ons lewe 'n onsin, en ek wil dit graag verduidelik. Gisteraand het ons ook gehoor oor die Tegnologiese Fakulteit van die Universiteit van die Wes-Kaap, wat baie sterk leierskap gelewer het in die struggle en ook daarna. Dit is vir my ook vreemd dat daar ook, selfs gisteraand, 'n stelling gemaak is, ons is almal Gereformeerd, dit het so deurgeslip, ek het byna verstik, maar dit is nou dit.

Ek wil net graag vir u sê dat die meeste mense wat in die Wes-Kaap is, wat op Oudtshoorn is, wat na hierdie fees toe kom, is mense wat op een of ander manier waarskynlik Gereformeerd is, en met die NG Kerk geassosieer word, maar ons sit Meneer, met 'n NG Kerk-familie wat uit vier ras-gedefinieerde dele bestaan. Nou sal hulle my onmiddellik aanvat, maar wat van die Verenigende Kerk, daar is swart en bruinmense, ek sê toe whoa. Die NG Kerk bestaan uit vier ras-gedefinieerde groepe: daar is die wit NG Kerk, daar is die bruin en deesdae meestal swart Verenigende Kerk in Afrika. Dan is daar die NG Kerk in Afrika wat eintlik deesdae die NG Kerk in die Vrystaat is, want daar het die Appèlhof gesê hulle bestaan nog steeds - hulle het die Appèlhof daarvoor nodig gehad. En dan is daar die Reformed Church vir Indiërs. Maar die meeste van ons mense het 'n assosiasie daarmee, vir my maak dit nie sin nie. Daar is nie net op ras-grondslag, maar ook op ander grondslag, geweldige diskriminasie - neem nou die gays. Ons het gister in die Rembrandtsaal geluister na 'n gesprek oor gays in die kerk. Daar is letterlik tientalle, om die waarheid te sê, 108 wetenskaplike toetse wat aandui dat homoseksualiteit 'n biologiese gegewe is, maar in ons kerke, nie net in die NG Kerk nie, maar in ons kerke word daar nog steeds gediskrimineer teen homoseksuele mense. Daar is nie, Meneer, ek stel dit vir u, daar is nie gelykheid in die Wes-Kaap nie.

Ek wil graag afsluit deur vir u te sê dat ek onlangs 'n baie interessante boek gelees het deur 'n fisioloog met die naam van Sam Harris. Hy sê dat "fundamentalism is a problem only because the fundamentals of certain idealists is a problem". Daar is te veel onsin en ek dink dit het tyd geword om op te staan en te sê genoeg onsin is onsin. In Afrikaans het ons 'n pragtige spreekwoord: perdedrolle is nie vye nie.

Baie dankie.

Dr. Sonn:

Baie dankie, dames en here, u kan reageer op die sprekers of u kan u eie kommentaar lewer of reageer op die paneelsprekers of vrae stel.

From the floor:

Mr. Premier, if I may, you know, two-and-a-half years ago you were, or just more than a year ago, you and almost the same group of ministers were in Oudtshoorn for an Imbizo and we spoke in the African Sun or the Holiday Inn and there I made a statement to you and I said to you, you know, that unless the ANC gets its house in order another party will be started by the people for the people in this town. Now it has been proven that that party, perhaps of no significance the party itself, but that party has actually balanced the whole thing of power in this town and taken it away from the ANC.

When we want to speak about a Home for All and, you know, we're not black enough and white enough, the question arises - how come that when we have this debate in a place called Oudtshoorn, the leadership of our town and the leadership of the ANC was not at the function last night and is not here today, and the question arises - are we serious in terms of this party where we were all together struggling for this thing we call freedom, where we have seen this, where we have done that, and is party at the end of the day more important than people caring and wanting to become who they are by nature to be? I just make those statements.

Dr. Sonn:

Thank you, that was a very pertinent point - is daar nog kommentaar?

Ja, noem net u naam asseblief voordat u reageer.

Ek sal bly wees as iemand van die vloer af ook oor die hele kwessie van identiteit waaroor al die sprekers gepraat het, sal reageer asseblief.

From the floor:

Goeiemiddag agbare Premier en ministers, my naam is Herschel Witbooi, ek is van die Agri-Besigheidsentrum hier op Oudtshoorn, and I'm a young South African and I make a lot of observations especially in the field that I am in, in agriculture, and I find that many of the problems that we are dealing with is not mostly racial, but it's a question of poverty and of classism that exists in our country, in our province, which is a huge problem because not only is there racism but the rich are arrogant and if we don't address the arrogance of rich people, of white people, white rich, black rich, coloured rich, irrespective, we are not going to deal with the racism issue in any case - want as mense by my kantoor inkom dan praat hulle nie net van - of hulle praat van rassisme nie, wanneer hulle praat van witmense dan equate hulle dit aan die geld wat die witmense het, die land wat die witmense het, en ek dink dit is 'n belangrike issue wat ons ook moet address.

Baie dankie.

Dr. Sonn:

Ek is so bly jy het verwys na klassisme want dit is 'n baie belangrike onderdeel en baie keer dink swartmense hulle is deel maar hulle is nie.

Ja, David ?

Brian het 'n baie moeilike konsep vanoggend hier verduidelik en as ek hom reg verstaan dan gaan dit amper half van hoë ontwikkelde mense wat op daai vlak kan debatteer en kan inskop op daai vlak ten opsigte van wat hy in gedagte het om as 'n teenvoeder op te tree vir rassisme. Ek dink voor ons daar kom is daar iets tussen-in, en ek dink die bronne wat beskikbaar is maak dat mense so reageer as wat hulle op die oomblik reageer. Die hele kwessie van materialisme, hoe kry ons mense op daai vlak sodanig bevredig, sodat dit nie nodig is vir mense om rond te skarrel op die grond vir die basies dinge, maar om uit te kom by dit wat hy vanoggend aan ons voorgestel het, want ek het my redelik ingestel om te luister na jou argumente. Jou argumente maak vir my geweldig sin, maar is dit nie te ver van die werklikheid af van wat op die grond gebeur nie en hoe maak ons om die werklikheid op die grond aangespreek te kry sodat ons na die volgende fase toe kan beweeg? Ek weet nie, ek sukkel daarmee, jy weet die hele kwessie wat Franklin sê oor identiteit?in 1961 was daar 'n seminaar gehou op Stellenbosch, en daar was bydraes gemaak van 'n verskeidenheid van akademici en onder andere was daar 'n danige professor, prof. P.J. Coetzee, wat spesifiek gesê het rondom hierdie kweesie wat jy nie erkenning gee aan bruinmense, waar daar buit in 'n informele gegewe is, hy is daar buite, is tasbaar, jy sien dit. Hy het gesê die bruinmense, volgens hom in aanhalingstekens, is 'n volk in wording, hulle het nie bestaansreg en hulle is nie deel van die wit groep nie. Hulle is deel van 'n ontluikende groep wat aan die swart groep behoort, omdat hulle 'n aangeleerde kultuur het, die Westerse kultuur wat aangeleer is. Nou wat maak 'n mens? Moet jy biologies iemand wees om geïdentifiseerd te wees of word jy iemand deur 'n aangeleerde kultuur? En spesifiek vir hierdie groep van mixed origin - wat is sy status ten opsigte van sogenoemde kultuur? Is dit 'n nasionale een, is dit 'n internasionale een of is dit 'n lokale een?

Baie dankie.

Dr. Sonn:

Dankie David. Dit sluit ook by die kwessie aan wat Fanie na verwys het van biologiese mites versus sosiologiese verskille. Wat sosiologies bestaan is nie noodwendig op biologies vasgegrond nie, dit is die essensie van die debat en reageer asseblief. Ek gaan jou 'n kans gee Brian, ek gaan net nog vanuit die vloer uit hoor, en dan gaan ek elkeen van die paneel 'n kort kans gee om te reageer. Is daar nog reaksies? Ek sal ook bly wees as u reageer soos u kollega daar van die Department van Landbou, sê vir ons wat word gesê op die grond, hoe sê ons mense vir julle, waarmee word jy geteister met watter vrae, sê hulle vir jou, Meneer, ek was nie wit genoeg nie, nou is ek nie swart genoeg nie?

Mnr. Slingers:

Can I have another turn?

Dr. Sonn:

Ja seker.

Mnr. Slingers:

Another question that arises that I hear daily is: Father, I cannot get a job - because, you know, 80% of people employed by Correctional Services, by the police, by all government sectors, must be black. Now black in terms of black, black, black. Not black in terms of almost-black like you were when you were part of the struggle and we sit with this dilemma that Oudtshoorn has a 9% black population and so all people that find employment in senior positions within our area are imports because we are not able - so, you know, the political scene creates a new form of apartheid in a town itself.

Dr. Sonn:

Baie, baie dankie, dit is 'n lekker op die grond vraag. Nog kommentaar? Ja seker, kan ons dit die laaste een maak, dan gaan ek vir Fanie, Brian en Mandla net kort geleenthede gee, dan vir die Premier 'n kans gee.

From the floor:

Ek is Willem Pretorius van Die Burger. Twee goedjies, een is om die soeke van identiteit, baie van die argumente wat ons hier gehoor het, is nie eintlik nuut nie, maar wanneer is daar 'n beweging in die groep wat dan nie swart genoeg en nie wit genoeg was om 'n naam te kry, 'n versamelnaam, want dit is moeilik om as jy 'n poster vir die Burger skryf, sogenaamde Kleurling in te pas en dan 'n amper bruin en al hierdie name, sal dit nie help in die soeke na identiteit as daar tot 'n besluit gekom kan word nie, dit is my vraag.

Dr. Sonn:

Baie dankie, ook 'n baie goeie vraag. Is daar nog vrae, nog kommentaar? So nie, dames en here gaan ek nou die hamer toepas en begin met Fanie. So kort as jy kan, Fanie.

Dr. Du Toit:

Dankie Franklin. Ek wil net miskien reageer op die vraag van identiteit. Ek dink dit is baie belangrik. Ek het reg in die begin gesê rassisme sit in my bloed as 'n Afrikaner. Ek neem deel aan hierdie gesprek om 'n Afrikaner te wees, wat vandag nie 'n eevoudige ding is nie, dit is nie 'n maklike identiteit om te hê nie, dit is nie maklik nie, ek dink nie daar is enige maklike identiteite nie. Dit is nie maklik nie en ek dink daar is nie genoeg werk gedoen deur die kultuurdraers van die Afrikaner-identiteit nie, die NG Kerke, die ATKV, die FAK, nie genoeg werk gedoen vir ons om te sê ons kom op 'n punt waar ons onsself kan aanvaar nie. Dit voel vir my ons kyk die hele tyd vorentoe en daar is te min gesprekke, en wêreldwyd ongelukkig is dit 'n verskynsel dat die groep wat sogenaamd skuldig is aan die verlede, vorentoe wil kyk. Maar ek dink dit is 'n geweldig belangrike gesprek wat ons moet hê, en nie genoeg het nie. Ek is nou huiwerig om die voorbeeld te gebruik, die website van die NG Kerk, die geskiendenis wat daarop aangedui word, die woord apartheid kom nie eers daarin voor nie. Dit help ons nie, dit help my nie om 'n Afrikaner te wees nie wat ek wil graag wees en ek wil graag my debatte vanuit daai hoek voer.

Ek wil ook net sê ek was onlangs in die geselskap van 'n regter met die naam Albie Sachs. Toe ons begin praat oor Afrikaner-identiteit, toe sê hy, hy wi vir my sê, hy was nie eintlik betrokke in die struggle vir 'n ruk nie, toe kom hy op 'n dag uit by Uys Krige se digkuns. 'n Vertoning daarvan en hy sê Uys Krige het daai aand heeltemal weggevoer geraak, sy arms het geswaai, hy het op en af in die pad geloop en hy sê drie weke later was hy in die struggle. En ek dink dit was die regter se tipiese uitreikende metode om vir my te sê gaan kyk na ander wortels in jou identiteit en gaan soek daai identiteit.

So, ek wil met Brian saamstem, ons moet uit ons identiteit uit deelneem aan die ras-debat, maar laat ek dit bysê, ek het 'n Suid-Afrikaanse paspoort, ek het 'n Suid-Afrikaanse ID-dokument en dit is deel van my identiteit. Ek is 'n burger en tussen my Afrikaner-identiteit en my Suid-Afrikaanse identiteit, is daar 'n debat aan die gang, soms praat ek vanuit my Afrikaner-hoek en soms vanuit my Suid-Afrikaanse hoek, maar ek gaan nie myself daai voorreg laat ontsê om uit die hoek van 'n Suid-Afrikaner te kan praat nie, want ek het daai dokument, ek kan dit vir julle wys.

Baie dankie.

Dr. Sonn:

Baie dankie Fanie. Brian?

Mnr. Slingers:

Thank you very much, Chair, in summing up I want to just make a quick observation. There is a group of ten or eleven comrades who are quite well known to a number of the people who are here, who in the last while have been tendering for a very significant piece of work in Natal. They all emerge from the non-racial movement, they have all been a very significant part of the struggle in one degree or the other, and I watched with very keen interest how they were at pains to identify themselves as Zulus and as Indians in order to win the business.

The Premier once remarked that the struggles for power inevitably racialise themselves in South Africa and I suspect that we need to have a very strenuous programme that acts against that kind of savagery. That's my first observation.

The second observation is that I don't have an identity crisis. I am very, very clear in my mind as to who I am, and I hold my head up high about that. I come out of a history that has no tolerance for racists and chauvinists and sexists and those sorts of people and I don't intend changing that on any account. I am very clear in my mind as to who I am. But there's a very interesting observation that got made by the Chair at the beginning of this discussion, ladies and gentlemen, which said that based upon - and the Wilmot James thing was invoked - and based upon - Philip Tobias did this work in the 1960s - in 1967 he published a book called "The Meaning of Race" - so it's not new stuff - but based upon this - the Chair shared with us that coloured people, in fact, are part of the black group and I listened to that with great interest because my engagement with the notion of coloured people and the notion of a black group has been part of a group of people who, as a group, found themselves acting against bi-apartheid fascism, and as a group identified themselves with others who were acting against bi-apartheid fascism.

But interestingly enough, I never ever meet anybody who tells me what Franklin told me, I always hear about their German side of the family. We have to get past that inelegance. We have to get past the inelegance of getting people to identify themselves in one way or the other. We have to begin to engage with people just as they are with their aggregate history, which doesn't mean that people are not part of a group, because history determines that, and as a group you have common experience, you have common history, you have common language, you even have a common idiom and sense of humour - and I am very proudly part of such a group that shares my history, my language, my idiom, my sense of humour, but most of all, my view on the way that human beings should live. I am proudly part of such a group.

And lastly, Chair, to David's question - the question of the practical implementation - if indeed we are successful to begin such a social movement, and I think we can, we can when we begin to capture the imaginations of various organs of civil society - and we begin to start a process of honest discourse and open debate and get beyond the platitudes of South African social analysis - it's platitude and it's nonsense more often than not - and start engaging with the real human beings that you're talking about in such a social movement. Not as a result of the fact that the government has got to do it - where we would have been if we'd ever believed that the government could deliver - but on the basis of a welded social group of people who are committed to building a civilised anti-racist society. On that basis, I think there are many, many, many practical solutions we can begin right now.

Thank you.

Dr. Sonn:

Thank you. Mandla?

Mr Manqongo:

Well, I just want to say that I firmly believe that one can explain anything from different points of view but you have got to choose the one that is much more sustainable. Whilst we accept the fact that some of the programmes can be explained on the basis of race, I think it is not sustainable to use that approach because it will, we will fluctuate from one point to the other, but if we look at the objective criteria - like if people are poor, as it was said there - let us deal with them because they are poor, not because they are of a particular race. I think if we follow that and if people are - there was this issue about employment - again, if we are looking at who are the best suited and then amongst those best suited we find the ones that would be less represented, then we will not have, you know, this explanation that it is on the basis of race.

So, I am of the view that it is easy to explain things on the basis of race but I think we must actually challenge ourselves to find other much more sustainable criteria than the easy ones which come very easily to us as South Africans which are racially-based explanations. I just want to say again, you know, I believe that if we can, as government or as society, government and the private sector embark on clear programmes that will actually address these legacies that we have, within a short space of time we can manage to stop this developing division now which is going to be based on race.

Dr Sonn:

Thank you very much Mandla, we have now come to a time that we are going to ask the Premier for his response, and, Premier, in doing so, the way I listened there hangs over this hall an unanswered question, an issue which is informed and infused with difficulty, if not confusion, and perhaps in addressing this fundamental issue, I would like to hear your view on what is called the theory and the practice, what we would like to have in our society and what we do not have, and how we move to what we would like to have? In other words - how do we deal with the myth, the biological myth of race on the one hand, and the dichotomy between the biological myth of race and the sociological and historic determinants which in fact shapes our society - and is non-racialism here - as Brian so well put it - "wonderlike menslikheid" - of is dit 'n ideaal waarna ons nog moet strewe en hoe strewe ons na daardie ideaal? Met ander woorde - hoe gaan ons die gaping slaan, die brug slaan, tussen die teorie, die ideaal, en die werklikheid - soos so baie van u gesê het - wat op die grond is? En ons sien uit daarna om na u te luister want ons weet soos gewoonlik gaan u vir ons help om hierdie tergende vraagstukke te verstaan.

Premier, wil u hier staan, of wil u net hier sit?

Premier Ebrahim Rasool:

Baie, baie dankie Franklin, dat u hier kom voorsit het op 'n baie moeilike debat en ek dink wat ek gehoor het, is maar net die beginpunt van so 'n debat.

And I think that the issue of the debate is a very important one as a forerunner to the practice, because we are at a point where I think South African society, and more evocatively Western Cape society, is being challenged, not with a failure, but with the absence of real progress on this entire issue.

Ek sê ons het hierdie titel 'nie wit genoeg nie, nie swart genoeg nie, rasse-identiteit', nie daar gesit om te sê dit is 'n debat oor bruinmense nie. Ons het dit gesit nie as 'n oproep op mense om te wees wat hulle nie is nie. What we wanted to do with the title, 'not white enough not black enough', is to create a sense of irony around something that can be called up and will be, whenever the Western Cape in particular faces a moment of decision, waar ons besluite moet neem, wat ons keuses moet uitoefen, dan skielik kom hierdie ding, 'nie wit genoeg nie, nie swart genoeg nie', na vore, and it seems to go to our very hearts and should, and it challenges us. Vir sommige maak dit bang, vir sommige bring dit woede op, and it enters the political force in such a way that it is able to call up every condition in which we live.

It reaches into our most anxious moment of indignity and calls it up into this moment of decision, and we thought why must we duck this thing, why must we give ownership of this dilemma of 'not white enough, not black enough', why must we give ownership to those who only come up with it at moments of these decisions, at political moments. At moments when votes are needed, and we thought let's, immediately after the political charge period, kom ons bring dit na vore. Let us bring it forward, let's discuss it at a time when there is no election, where there is no decision to be made, where there are no choices to be exercised. Kom ons bring dit nou na vore, and let us see how much interest there is in trying to resolve and try to fuel the debate to reach a practical reality that is different.

And so I would like to take the next step in this debate into the town of Stellenbosch. I would like to say 'nie wit genoeg nie, nie swart genoeg nie', as 'n uittartende ding. Almal van julle wat nou lekker campaign in die elections met hierdie slogan, kom ons praat nou daaroor wanneer Kaya Mandi se mense daar is, wanneer Idas Valley se mense daar is, wanneer Paradyskloof se mense daar is, en al die akademici want Stellenbosch is daar, kom ons praat nou oor taal. Because now it is not about scoring political points, it is about putting a sustainable viewpoint on the table - what you mean. That is where we will go next - to the town of Stellenbosch and let's deal with the issues which have sold many a copy of Die Burger over the last few weeks. And let Prof Giliomee say what he means when he doesn't like that option and let Prof Chris Brink, where there are rules, let him be able to say in front of African, coloured and white people: wat is die taaldebat.

And so, in much the same way, we have chosen Brighton, not Oudtshoorn itself where the festival is, and let us be able to say what is this issue of 'nie wit genoeg nie, nie swart genoeg nie'. It is not to frame the debate and say it is a coloured debate. But you know I think that what Brian has done, is effectively to challenge us into saying from what point of view does this debate come, and I think that I would speak about it at another occasion, but in very short form, what are we busy with?

Of course, I think that it has been proven over twelve years of democracy, that society is not equal. In fact, it is maybe more unequal than before. That racism has not died, that we have not outlived the need for some kind of the past and so now we are hitting the ceiling of the rainbow discourse. Ons begin nou te sien hy het perke en dat dit nie goed genoeg is om vorentoe te gaan nie. Of course for us to open this debate beyond "rainbowism", that liberal discourse has to a large extend transformed itself into a muscular liberal discourse, which now not only says society has reached equilibrium but any attempt to open the debate on race and identity, anyone who says you have got to make right the wrongs of the past, because it was not just the separation of people, it was the unequal access of the resources of society at apartheid. If you want to open that debate, you are the new racist, and how sad is it that those who brought us liberation are now leading the re-racialising of the society.

As jy nou wil sê, swartmense het nooit dié gekry nie, gaan ons vir hulle dit nou gee. Bruinmense was afgesny van hierdie bronne, ons het nooit dit gekry nie, ons kon nooit tot daar gekom het nie, kom ons sien hoe maak ons die samelewing weer gelyk. Then what you are doing, is by putting racial categories to those must reach certain accesses, you are re-racialising, you are the new racist in society.

For some there is a third discourse, which is using the black debate, which uses the fact that we are black as an (inaudible) but our (inaudible) of our right to have access. What that third discourse does, is it tends to create new elites. Race and identification is used not as liberation, but as means to build a new elitism, because we now ascertain ourselves on the base of our colour, on the base of our language and on the basis of everything we try to move away from.

The political tradition I come from, is one based on a long discourse and debate around colonialism of a special type, and what it does mean in South Africa, the fact that those who come from Holland, Portugal, Britain, some of them are here with us and how do we live with them, some of us come from the East. This national democracy approach to life, apartheid is fundamentally a scrambled egg, the yellow and the white is all mixed up, we have to co-exist and we have to find ways of living together. We need to understand that in South Africa the act of dispassion took a racial fall, but the objective was dispassion. We were removed from the land, we were discriminated upon, salaries and etc. And the category that was used was race, in another context it was other categories that may have been used, but here in South Africa it was a different story. And so we still sit with the old geographical who's African, who is European, who is Malay, who is Indian, and who could not be classified and was simply called coloured. And so some still hold on to that African and it is reaching its limits in saying who is Africans, because the President tried to redefined what is African, but we sit with the old definitions that come from the apartheid times. And so, what is it that we are busy with, but not only was race used to dispose people, but in the process of disposing people on the basis of race, we manipulated who people were, and so because I come from a Malay background, I'm supposed to be a Coon and all of those things. And what I'm struggling with today is how to enjoy the Malay choirs, etc. That is what I think this invitation is all about, that is what I think the KKNK must try to do, so that we see: wie is jy, hoe sien jy vir my?

So, that it is not an easy debate, if it is comfortable there is something wrong, because then we going into that first discourse of "rainbowism", because it doesn't invite us to struggle, it does not invite us om mekaar uit te skel en uit te vloek, before we get to the harmony. Because harmony can only come on the basis of having looked into each other's souls, having seen the mutual hurt that may have been done and therefore coming to a better appreciation of who we are not on the basis of the categories we inherited. We must be able to say, you know, I have come to respect this one, and I have come to like this one, I want to be with this one, because other than the issue of colour, I have come to understand this person, actually like his music. So I'm saying that it is an invitation really to struggle, it's an invitation to look at the other things which define us, other issues where the memory must be healed, the slavery that Franklin speaks about, we can't understand who we are today if we don't recognise that we were slaves before. The fact that we could point out, during the apartheid years, our German grandfathers, our Dutch fathers or great-grandfathers, etc, it is saying that severe violence was done to our mothers. Slavery was the possession of people. You did with people who you owned, what you wanted to. The fact that we are here is living proof of what was done to our mothers on all of those farms. Those are the memories that must be healed.

And so, an invitation for A Home for All is an invitation to unmask, om oop te vlek, die geskiedenis van slawerny, and a death of a language. If language is the transmitter of culture, if language is the transmitter of values, if language is the transmitter of a tradition, what does the death of a language mean in the context and the adoption and creation of a new language, Afrikaans? What is being transmitted? What is being passed on?

And so, the invitation to join A Home for All, is an invitation to ask the uncomfortable questions and to struggle so that the Afrikaans we speak is recognised firstly as the one that replaces the death of the other languages. And if it is all of that, have we been able to identify the values, the traditions, the culture that has been transmitted comfortably, are we with it and what do we want to reform in it, if we move forward? En ek dink dit is die uitnodiging vir die Tuiste vir Almal, we must also ask that which we comfortably hold up as an identity, ek is bruin, and all those kind of things. I think how much of that is defensive when Nelson Mandela, he came out and spoke about the so-called coloured, to be able to speak to a particular community, and he was then told that I'm not so-called coloured, I'm coloured. I make this big painful confession that he was corrected not to speak about so-called coloureds.

The question we must ask and that is what the Home for All is about, was that into a defensive identity to try to hold onto that what we know, that what we are comfortable with. And the more we problematise all of these things, the better I think it is going to be to come to other identities. Because I think the one thing the new South Africa does is that it makes it comfortable to carry multiple identities, because the worse thing we can do, is try to live or die by a single identity. I should find it very comfortable to be a person who grew up in a coloured community, who happens to be a Muslim, who enjoys classical music, who supports the Stormers, even if they lose, and to speak English and Afrikaans, but I like the Afrikaans that I was taught in District 6 by my parents. And all of that is held together by the fact that I'm a South African. I think that those things become a lot more descriptive of the complete reality that I think we are living in. But to live and die by a single identity is maybe the most dangerous thing, because you put all your eggs in one basket, and when that basket is unsustainable our world will fall apart. I think that it becomes a very important set of issues.

As I said last night, in ending and I will end here on that note also, that the test for all of us is whether what we can claim for ourselves, are we willing to give that to others? Dit wat ons vir onsself gee, is ons bereid om dit vir ander ook te gee? That, I think, needs to be unpacked a lot more properly at another occasion. Within a Muslim context, what Muslims claim for themselves in a minority and I challenge them on this, are they prepared to give to others where Muslims are the majority? The freedom of religion Muslims claim in South Africa and enjoy, I don't think Muslims give to anyone else if they were in Iran or wherever they are. I don't think Muslims give the freedom that our women enjoy in South Africa, to dress the way they want to, to be what they want to, to speak what they want to, I don't think so. The point that I'm making is that each one of our identities, who we are, each of one of our communities, needs to put that test to ourselves, because that and the most important thing is who you want to be, in the face of how much space you make for the other person you are most uncomfortable with.

I think for example a test that I must past, is a test on how much rights I want to give to homosexuals. When I can past that test, then I can speak with the freedom to claim for myself certain things. As daar haakplekke is, en wat jy wil afstaan aan ander, die regte wat jy wil afstaan aan ander, dan is ons miskien nog nie gereed om in die volle sin van Suid-Afrikaansheid te omarm nie.

So, I'm not summarizing this debate Franklin, I'm hoping to problematise it a lot more, because the Home for All is not a comfortable debate; it is a struggle for who we are, who we want to be, the reality we struggling against, the dilemmas we face in our souls, what we want for ourselves, but are unable to give to others, etc.

So baie dankie dat julle deelneem.

(Applous)

Dr. Sonn:

Dames en here, ladies and gentlemen, the trouble often in the world is, in society is, that when there is a depth of intellectual understanding and this is the agony, how do you translate that into practical reality so that the people understand? And the way that the Premier has chosen is, this is a start, and then he indicated there will be other venues and other, as he calls it, less ratified circumstances where people can, for the first time often also, meet the people themselves, and my appeal to you is - all of us - that we also continue with this debate, or this discussion, around our dinner tables, in our social settings, and particularly, you know, Premier, these days, with our youth. The people who were the young lions and are now successful professionals and business people who blandly tell you they have no time for all this, they're busy with their lives.

If I may sum up, and I hope I do the Premier justice, is that what he in fact said, is - and what our task is - that our existential reality which has been defined variously by the panellists is, as a matter of course, circumscribed by the process forward. Who we are, is determined and qualified by the road forward. And what he said to us - and I think the panellists dealt with it in different ways - but I think he concluded the way - and that is - if I may sum it up - he mapped out the road forward to a Home for All, and this afternoon and this morning was an attempt to lay down an intellectual framework on the basis of what is perhaps blandly seen just as a political slogan is actually a very, very profound statement and a dictum which must inform the road forward to what we call the national project of building non-racialism.

You have heard differences from the speakers, the Premier pulled it all together, and in the end he said to us - I warn you, guys, this is agony, and certainly for me there was also agony because you did touch, not my mind, and the speakers also, I was not touched intellectually only, raw nerves were touched and I am sure you agree with me and in fact the agony has started and, Premier, why we support you, publicly and privately, is because you have the courage to bring agony to this community despite the cost to you, personally and politically. Few political leaders do that. Political leaders, universally, Premier, are criticised and condemned because - why - they only say what the people want to hear. And about you, it will be said, now and in the future, you didn't promise an easy way, you promised agony, and that is not always politically popular, but thank God, you're doing it.

Ladies and gentlemen, for your presence, and particularly the MECs, thank you for your presence and please take this debate forward.

May I also then, in conclusion, thank you Fanie, thank you Brian, thank you Mandla - you know, Mandla, the one thing I aspire to other than the agonies that you promise is to be a Tembu man!

(Laughing)

I didn't know that it's so nice.

(Laughing)

But I think it's a bit late for me, you know, so Mandla - also - thank you for you and the work that you're doing and in conclusion, Premier, thank you very, very much and may God bless you on your way forward.

Bye bye.