The myth of the Rainbow Nation created by Nelson Mandela was a necessary invention. Today’s revisionists are either too young, or have bad memories, and so they fail to understand how and why it came to being.
Following the death of apartheid, SA needed a new and common vision that incorporated its people on both sides of the oppression divide. And it needed it quickly. The National Party had left the government coffers empty, institutions were in flux, and a brain drain of white skills could have crippled the economy. South Africans needed to feel they were part of a common future in the midst of a fog of uncertainty.
A myth was cobbled together to win over hearts and minds. Mandela, the great reconciler, took the nation to his bosom. A new rainbow flag and anthem — everyone knew about half of the lyrics — was hauled out at sport events.
South Africans began fantasising that they were one big happy family, and pretending that there was no strife. Like any family with unresolved issues, we imagined the issues would go away if they were ignored. We were wrong.
Black people forgave white citizens without expecting them to give up an iota of the rewards of 300 years of oppression. Black people wanted the unwieldy dream to work, for Mandela’s sake. But a family can’t be built on trying to please one member, no matter how much that person is loved.
The rainbow myth glossed over the deep differences between citizens, and tricked white people into thinking that everything was fine, and that they had to atone for nothing. In creating the myth, Mandela asked black people to sacrifice their anger and their pain.
White people living in Rainbow Land believed that most of them were free of prejudice. Racists were khaki-clad, horse-riding hatemongers — not them. English-speaking whites, especially, tended to believe they held liberal values, because they loved Mandela and some of their best friends happened to be black.
They knew the apartheid government did bad things, but refused to accept that it was done on their behalf. They knew they were advantaged, but refused to accept that this was as a result of a deliberate programme of legislation and kragdadigheid committed in their names.
Above all, they refused to acknowledge and engage with people who had lived with and survived the trauma committed in their name. Telling people to get over it because they are now citizens of an imaginary Rainbow Land is massaging salt into the wound.
All too often, white South Africans believe that the growth of the black middle class is evidence that they have overcome the pain of apartheid.
They are wrong. A degree, a new car, and nice clothes do not wash away the pain of 300 years of oppression — it still cuts deep, and it still hurts.
So, how do we reconcile two groups of people living in the same country under a single Constitution? It has never been practical or sensible to hope white people were going to be driven into the sea at the end of apartheid, and to hope black people could recover from the pain and injustice by imagining that it had never happened.
South Africans of all hues are stuck with one another and somehow have to make it work for practical reasons. Not dealing with the issue will only be handing it over to the next generation, who seem much more impatient and intolerant than the first batch of free South Africans.
Reconciliation has to take place without rainbows, unicorns, and waving flags. It has to start in homes and hearts. It has to start with the acknowledgment that a crime was committed, and the perpetrators were white and the victims black. The crime was more than not being allowed onto a beach or the right to vote. The right to access the economy was stolen — 69 laws were drafted and passed over 150 years to keep black people from full participation in the economy.
Reconciliation can begin with an acknowledgement that restitution has to be made.
When people talk about the concept of whiteness, it has very little to do with the colour of skin. It is a political concept — they were entitled to better homes, far better education, and better life prospects, at the expense of black people. This gave white South Africans a false sense of entitlement during apartheid. And 22 years on white privilege is still entrenched, and will be for decades to come.
Many white South Africans have acknowledged that racism is wrong. That is the first step. They have yet to list their transgressions. You can’t repent without listing your sins. Then you have to atone to secure forgiveness. Atonement does not mean feeding black children occasionally. It means sacrificing a part of yourself without expecting anything in return, and putting yourself at the mercy of the victim.
There needs to be introspection and a re-examination of nationhood. There needs to be a space for listening. When feeling the need to speak, to hold your tongue and listen some more.
Rainbow Land is a wonderful place; we would all like to live there. We will all have smiling faces and happy children who are oblivious of discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation — and they will all know all the words of the national anthem.
There is no short cut on the journey to this mythical place; we have to deal with our current reality. The nation has to agree how far it has gone on the journey. Not being honest does not help anyone. White South Africans have taken only the first step. — Business Day
Claasen is the founder of media strategy company Untold Media
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.