Brackenfell: maybe it’s time to legislate exactly what racism is

Racism has become too easy, and too difficult, and too broad.

It’s too easy to call somebody a racist and too easy to debunk an accusation. It’s all because we don’t really care to have a proper, useful definition of the thing so maybe it’s time.

The scenario plays out over and over again and it’s getting predictable and tiring. Somebody shouts racism, political parties joust to see who can be the first to grandstand, a person of the allegedly marginalised class stands up to the alleged oppressor, gets called a tropical fruit, a fight ensues, the fight dies down and we repeat it tomorrow.

Brackenfell High School is the latest episode in this South African soap opera and tragically, as always, there’s never a desire to hear the other side. To most, there’s no sense of needing to hear the other side.

On the one side, there’s the sense of “we’ve been standing down for too long” and on other side, the sense of “they’re breaking what we built” dominates. God can only help those caught in the middle trying to be reasonable, as they’ll feel the brunt from both ends.

We can have a conversation about how this angry culture incentivises racism another time, but for now we need to ask ourselves what is racism, exactly, and when can one invoke the term.

Why is a definition important though?

Let’s talk about something most people can agree on; chocolate is fantastic! I mean, if somebody asks whether I want chocolate, I’ll already start salivating at the thought. I know the taste, what I’m expecting, and how I’m going to react to it. But let’s imagine they’ve added wine, turmeric and apple cider vinegar to the chocolate, and my reaction probably won’t be what is expected.

Similarly, for the most part, we’ve agreed that racism is bad, but that agreement came under the understanding of racism being a textually defined thing of “prejudice based on race”, if using a definition from the ’90s.

Today, the idea of racism has gotten so broad that you wouldn’t fault people for having no clue where things stand.

The Kiffness split the nation during lockdown for calling out Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, as some saw it as racist based on the “power dynamic”, though no mention of race was made.

More recently, an Instagram page dedicated to uncovering racism in Brackenfell High School through lived experiences and narratives included paragraphs about the inability to get onto the first team when parents weren’t sponsors of the team, which could probably apply interracially (assuming the existence of wealthy black parents). It, however, also included narratives of black children being referred to as bush people, which would fit the original definition of racism.

This is simply one example of how the line has shifted over time for many, but not all.

And is racism systematic? Structural? Pervasive? Do we fight institutions or instances?

Obviously, if we all have differing views of racism, it would be impossible to even begin engaging on the racism issues in South Africa and it seems that’s exactly where we are. No surprises, people generally tend to adopt the interpretation that best suits them.

So those who could benefit from dealing less with racism would likely adopt an interpretation that allows them to believe that there is no racism in having private, white-only events, and those who would benefit from alleging the existence of racism would likely adopt an interpretation that allows them to cry racism at anything from taxes to mosquito bites.

Yes, the balance is certainly somewhere in the middle, but not only is it difficult to find, it’s also convenient for all sides to maintain the confusion. Why? Because as long as there’s no certainty, playing in the grey area allows us to win the game not on any real objective terms, but merely on our abilities to get enough people on our side. It’s a popularity game.

If we could agree on what racism is, or at least, what manifestations of racism we want to deal with, we can get started on that but that’s not going to happen just like that.

This is one of those times the law must kick in and definitively state what racism is in 2020 so we can deal with it. We can even change it later but at least for the time being it will give us much needed certainty.

Of course, many won’t agree with the definition but people not agreeing on racism is currently where we are anyway.

At least this way we can start with the solution and not abuse racism as a political tool, but rather take the next steps to defeating it.

Richard Anthony Chemaly – entertainment attorney, radio broadcaster and lecturer of communication ethics.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.