VOICE OF AFRIKANA// 26 SEPTEMBER 2022, VOL 2, LAND UNIT
As usual, he was and maintained his calmness throughout. He was composed and relaxed. His talk or rather language, however, was like torrential rain, on certain issues. He had to be. Who, at his advanced age, conscious of where our society is from and is, would not be? It was on the 19th of April 2022. The occasion was a conversation. Kgoro was in session, under Kgoro Conversations, an initiative of our Association, namely: Afrikana Justice Association (then known as the Human Rights and Social Justice Association). The focus was a clause in the 2020 Expropriation Bill.
- Dr. Mosibudi Mangena had graced a session hosted by Kgoro Conversations, an inaugural session for that matter. Asked about the seriousness, if any, of causing the landless people of Afrika, in the country, to gain access to land, his response was similar to what he wrote about in one of his books. He held that we are land stupid! “We”, means Afrikans. The book is titled “We Can Fix Ourselves”.
- You wonder how Ntate Mangena arrived at that conclusion. Not that he should not. No. The challenge is in the fact that as Afrikans we have been made to be euphemistic, as best we may be. More so, those of us who are pacified by what we call education. The question is- on what basis does Ntate Mangena say we are land stupid?
- In summation, he indicated, firstly, that his conclusion was backed up by the work done by the oppressors to dispossess Afrikans of land. The oppressors were serious about their program. They understood that land was central to what they wanted to achieve. We, on the other hand, have no definitive program, a second ground for his conclusion.
- In summation, he indicated, firstly, that his conclusion was backed up by the work done by the oppressors to dispossess Afrikans of land. The oppressors were serious about their program. They understood that land was central to what they wanted to achieve. We, on the other hand, have no definitive program, a second ground for his conclusion.
- Conversations at Kgoro are aimed at contributing to, if not initiating, debates in society. So, the 19th of April 2022 conversation partly led to this work.
- In 2024, we will be 30 years since our political “victory”.[1] Ask Malan what his take is. He is, by the way, credited by the beneficiaries of his work and is notorious for fathering and/or co-parenting apartness, known as apartheid. He may confirm that we are land stupid, Malan that is. He will take you through the work done from the year 1948 to the year 1956, a period of about 8 years. This was the period during which a new phase of continuing with the edifice of unjustness was initiated and mainly cemented. The barbarism unleashed served the system well.
- Committed to achieving separateness, Malan would say the following about their work:
Immorality and no mixing
a. There was in no way that the kaffirs would indulge in the pleasures of the world, intimately, with the people chosen by the maker. Imagine Kaffirs and Europeans, intimately. Such a scandalous disgrace, he would say. To ward off such an aberration, there had to be separateness. To achieve separateness, sexually, between the kaffirs and the Europeans, an Act of Parliament was necessary. Immorality, Malan would say, had to be averted by way of introducing the law. As such, in 1949, a year after the Apartheid government took charge, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949 ensued. The following year, there was an Immorality Amendment Act of 1950. The two are understood in the following manner.
i.the former prohibited mixed marriages, on the grounds of immorality. A mixed marriage was understood as a marriage between those from Europe on the one hand and Afrikans or on the other hand on the other hand Europeans and all others, and
ii. the amendment law was to prohibit the pleasures of the intimacy of unmarried Europeans and Afrikans and/or Europeans and all others.
b. No time wasted. Within three years of ruling, whether married or not, no aberration could, in law, occur. Such great commitment, he would say. Of course, to a separatist program amongst racial groups, we may say to him.
Who stays where?
c. Like that 1913 Act thing, there had to be law to further achieve residential separateness, Malan would say. We may say that such was based on racial discrimination to accomplish residential racial separation. As a fact, no Afrikan was exonerated from forced and/or armed removal,[2] and Afrikans were indeed removed from their land, with the system ready to and killed many. The law would even separate Afrikans. Places nearest to towns, walking distances from your Central Business District (CBD), would be occupied by one set of Afrikans (Coloured persons), with the rest of the Afrikans confined to what today are called Townships. Much has been written and discussed by many others about this Act, the Group Areas Act Act No 41 of 1950. For now, please do not have the rural people in mind. That said, the Group Areas Act was not enough.
Prohibition of opposition
d. All manner of opposition had to be crushed, Malan would say. Any form of opposition to the then government was deemed to be communist. At that time, communism and/or any conduct to advance the cause of freedom were/was outlawed. To enforce the relevant policy, the relevant Minister served as though he was the Court. Persons were banned. A person could be banned from, say Mpumalanga and may have had to stay in, say, the Northern Cape. And, stay in a specific area. The Suppression of Communism Act, Act No 44 of 1950 was used to achieve this.
Dompas
e. What of the Dompas law? The law of the stupid people had to be developed. “Dom” is stupid. “Pas” is an Identity Book.[3] These stupid people had to carry and produce identity books, he would say. The stupid people were Afrikans. Very deliberately emphatic. Stupid Afrikans needed to know their place. That was seriousness, he would say! Does it not show commitment, though rooted in and led to unjustness? What of the homelands law?
Homelands
f. As for the Homelands, Malan would say that it was necessary for such places to have a law applicable to them. This was mainly tribal and ethnic in nature, we say. A specific tribe in one area and others in their specific areas. Additionally, Afrikans had to be far away from prime land, in hot places.
In Parliament/Representation
g. In Parliament, there had to be separate representation. How could Europeans mix, in Parliament, with persons whose countries of origin are not those in Europe? The Separate Representation of Voters Act of 1951 was necessary, as the Europeans thought, he would say! Action for them, by the way, was very important. Not only mouth-words, oral talk if you like!
Education
h. He would quote the following:
“There is no place for the Bantu in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour. Until now he has been subjected to a school system which drew him away from his own community and misled him by showing him green pastures of European society in which he was not allowed to graze ”.[4] “He/his” refers to Afrikans.
i. The Bantu Education Act, Act No 47 of 1953 was the result. This may partly explain why we operate as if the development of many disciplines in society should not be from Afrikans. The education system was designed such that, amongst others, Afrikans could not produce knowledge worth studying at institutions of higher learning. That may further explain why even after 28 years of “freedom”, no Afrikan material is taught at universities. If there is, it may be very limited. It may be that some material is produced by Afrikans. Despite this, it may not be Afrikan in substance. It might as well be a recitation or reproduction, in different forms, to existing material, of knowledge systems whose values are not Afrikan.
j. It is not surprising, we say, that Afrikans have not waged the struggle from the “knowledge” production perspective. We, as Afrikans, would rather toyi-toyi[5] against the effects of law; than influence its development. Even at this stage of our post-apartheid system, the law which is developed in our country is not Afrikan law, yet, as Afrikans, we occupy positions of leadership. This is one example of the effects of what we call education for an Afrikan. The education Malan’s system worked hard for.
Separate toilets and public spaces
k. Imagine the use of the same toilets and other public facilities/spaces! It was not to happen. The filthy barbarians could not share the same space and/or air with the civilized people. Intrinsically, on Malan’s version, there had to be toilets for Europeans. This happened. Too, others had theirs. Separation at all costs! The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, Act No 49 of 1953 was the instrument used for that purpose. Action, again. To achieve what? Separateness!
Prohibition of interdict
l. We were extremely serious. You have got to like us for our seriousness, Malan would say. Indeed, they should be envied. So committed to their program. However, it is at this point that we part ways, for of course, what they sought to and achieved was not what human beings with a sense of humanity[6] would work for. They stopped any Court process to prevent forced and/or armed removals. Say, as an example, there was a directive for the Afrikan people of Mohodi to be removed from their land, assuming that at the time (1956) they stayed there. Afrikans were not, the law so prevented them, authorized to approach the Court for help.
m. Say such people of Mohodi were to be arrested for not vacating the land and the arrest was authorized by means of any directive, such Afrikans could not approach the Courts for review and/or appeal to challenge the directive. The law was called the Natives (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act, Act No. 64 of 1956.[7] The system was so serious that the court’s powers were completely removed. The system even produced one-page[8] legislation, just to deal with belligerent recalcitrant Afrikans. Malan would say this with a smile, regarding their land program, Courts would not stand in their way.
8. There you have it. When it suited them, people who want to be known as great protectors of the Court system took, by way of usurpation, very important functions of the Court. Imagine if Afrikans were to do this.
9. Everything was planned. During times when the plan was not as successful, an amendment would be introduced. The first two pieces of legislation about immorality, above, refer. In other instances, what would otherwise not have been unlawful, would be criminalized.[9] Conversely, what was inherently unlawful was protected by law. One of the examples is forced and/or armed removals. The objective was to attain a complete state of separateness, invest in certain areas, empower certain people and turn Afrikans into mendicants for all forms of inclusion, for those who were “lucky”, on the side table.
10. Importantly, land dispossession and the continued exclusion of Afrikans were at the heart of the entire project. This even included the taking away of the right of review and/or appeal. Yes! That is how serious the land program was. Any form of frustration against the implementation of the land program was highly despised. No space for the right to review any government decision on land was allowed. Even in examples of directions that specific persons should vacate their land. If found guilty of being violative of the relevant land law, no appeal/review was permitted. That is how serious the guys were.
11. Take the land. Or attempt to take it, and an Afrikan opposes such. Arrest the Afrikan and take the land. Who is he, this Kaffir, after all? A barbarian and an uncivilized fellow! Once such land was taken and allocated to individuals from Europe, land ownership principles would apply. From then on, such land belongs to Europeans, the civilized ones.
12. A Justice of the Court, in summation, held that the law and policies were used as follows:
a. “forced removal of” Afrikans “from their land was effected”, and
b. Afrikans “were compelled … to live in racially designated locations”;
c. “Residential segregation was the cornerstone of the apartheid policy”;
d. “Differentiation on the basis of race was, accordingly,” a source of:
i. “grave assaults on the dignity of black people, and
ii. … resulted in the creation of large, well-established and affluent white urban areas”,
e. the areas for Europeans were “co-existing side-by-side with crammed pockets of impoverished and insecure black ones”;
f. the European "principles of ownership of Roman-Dutch law then” were used to protect:
i. the dispossession of land;
ii. allocation of such dispossessed land to European individuals and communities;
iii. great and substantial investments in communities in (ii) were made to a point of being “large, well-established and affluent white urban areas” and
iv. the exclusion of Africans by means of “crammed pockets of impoverished and insecure black” townships resulted, as planned;
13. Some may say that the above is in the past. The past, we say, always has a habit of being connected with the now. In fact, it is always the case.
14. When the work of the racist past system is considered, is our society different? What has changed, regarding what the Justice recorded, since 1994? Do not we still have:
a. grave assaults on the dignity of black people?
b. racially designated locations, though no longer legislated in the racial sense?
c. large, well-established, and affluent urban areas foreign to many Afrikans, which have incorporated the better “kaffir”?;
d. overcrowded, and no longer pockets but many impoverished and insecure locations for Afrikans? and
e. the European "principles of ownership of Roman-Dutch law” which have perpetuated the exclusion of Afrikans?
We still do!
15. For the oppressors, the frame of mind was actioned. Cause, maintain and sustain “grave assaults on the dignity of black people”. No confusion! They knew what they wanted and went for it. Stand in the way, during those days, you would be visited with punishment by way of a sjambok, you would be imprisoned or killed. Crystal clear!
16. Too, we know what we want. Our leaders know the fundamental rights contained in the Constitution. The Constitution states that ours should be a society based on human dignity. Further, the quality of life of citizens must be improved, the leaders know.
17. Land stupid, contrarily, we do not go for what we are constitutionally commanded to do. Whilst the government of the past was known for (a) separateness, (b) working hard to attain separateness, (c) working hard for the “grave assaults on the dignity of black people”, (d) doing all it could to benefit Europeans and (e) placing land at the heart of its entire edifice, what is our present government known for? On the language front, is the apartheid system not known for its arrogant imposition of a European language, which, in written form and daily parlance, appears to be Afrikan when it is not? On the other hand, is the current government even imagining imposing Afrikan languages on persons whose origin is not Afrika?
17. Let us see how the governments differ; on seriousness, respecting our topic:
18. Previous government-
a. separateness- the previous government worked hard to attain this and attained it. One of the essential aspects of this was to seriously invest in Europeans-only-areas. That was a system taking care of “its” European people;
b. grave assaults on the dignity of black people”. It succeeded;
c. previous government did all it could to benefit Europeans. It succeeded, and
d. previous government placed land at the heart of its entire edifice. It and its leaders understood that land is everything. No area of life is devoid of land involvement, they understood, correctly. Life is grounded in land. Malan and his system knew and approached such with seriousness. Crucially, be without land, you will soon be reminded or realize that you are without an economy. They knew this and understood it well. They made sure that Europeans were on the main land table. Afrikans, on the other hand, were excluded. They succeeded in their program.
19. What is our present government known for?
a. People’s government- the present government loves its people. No separateness. Nation building is core. No one should be made to feel that they are troubled. Eish, the only challenge is in the fact that Afrikans remain troubled. That considered, government will work out a Master Plan to address the misplaced ill feelings of Afrikans. After all, it is the government by, of and for the people;
b. land- the present government places land somewhere. Yes, land is important. However, the government had to start with other legislative programs. Soon, it will address land reform “more” seriously. We, as a government of the day, imagine it being said, will make sure that all share in the land. Afrikans will be accommodated. However, to do away with landlessness and its effects, the government may need 70 years. In the process, the government would request those who have land to share, donate if you like;
c. dignity of the descendants of Europe- the current government is doing all it can to benefit them (by “protecting” the land registered in their names). It is succeeding, and
d. indignity of an Afrikan- the current government is working hard to eliminate the “grave assaults on the dignity of black people”, its officials may say. The reality, however, paints a different picture. Afrikans, as a group, suffer.
20. Could it still be proper to state that while Malan’s government had a clear program, our government does not have a definitive program? Well, maybe there is such a program. Perhaps it is not stated expressly. Possibly the National Development Program may serve as such a plan. Conduct, however, demonstrates that the government’s work is meant to protect those who benefited from the oppressive system. Once government says investor confidence, Amen! The principle, in simple terms, means that what we do must please those who put money into the economy. Our future is determined by money. What an interesting society we are. Is it Afrikan?
21. Perhaps we need to start applying our minds carefully to whether the government is not clear about what it wants. It may be that we do not want to acknowledge the power of that investor confidence thing. It may be painful to think it that way, in the same manner as it is difficult to acknowledge that we are land stupid. Moreso when we have caused ourselves to believe that our government is for and by the people.
22. Still on Malan, what he would have taken us through is not about and is not in the past. The effect of the above is experienced and felt every day. We say, and the government knows that we suffer the effects of landlessness. People are crammed in what you call townships. I mean, the size of a stand would be fit for a horse’s occupation, in some instances. No space to plant a serious tree. Some do not even have a six metres portion of land, outside their shacks, which they may call their own or space for their exclusive use and control. The size of the shack would not even accommodate two beds, in some instances. Some, if not many, who reside in those areas, seem to have resigned to their situation. That may be noticed by those who are alive to the fact that they deserve more. Some other persons seem oblivious to their conditions. It calls for action at a consciousness level.
23. What of rural areas? The size of the land for the entire community may even be equivalent to the size of the land occupied by the guy on the portion of land, called a farm, adjoining such communal land. Afrikans, 100 000, in population, may occupy a piece of land equivalent to the farmer’s land. The farmer stays with four of his family members. The rest, say 20, are those who would best be described as, we should not say it, modern slaves.
24. Well, let’s clap hands for our leaders. They have done the best they could. They are, in any case, genuine. What else could they have done?
25. Wish Dr. Mangena was wrong? How can we be stupid? After all, some of our leaders fought for freedom. Some went to prison, some were exiled, and others were banished to some areas and with their family units and structures wrecked. They suffered for freedom and justice. Now we are free and enjoy justice. How can we be stupid? Some of us are “educated”. Some graduated with flying colours. Some produced knowledge, in many fields of society. Well, that knowledge shall be a source of study, in many years to come. Possibly 100 years in future. No, Dr Mangena’s statement cannot be correct. We are not land stupid.
26. The converse is the truth, however. We are land-wise. There are many reasons why we have not progressed as we wished. Our people need to be patient. They should not be impatient. They should remember that we fought for them. We went into exile. We suffered a lot, for their freedom. The Government would want to be heard saying.
27. The above, however, appears to be just wishful thinking. Experience seems to fortify Dr. Mangena’s version. All indications point to one conclusion. It is that we are land stupid! Even if this conclusion is not correct, we are conscious of the fact that if we are not land stupid, we certainly are not land-wise. Although we may say all we wish in an attempt to counter Dr. Mangena’s version, such efforts would likely not persuade any person with reasonable senses.
28. The fact is that with no shame, we, embrace this stupidity or lack of wisdom. Conscientious stupidity! Dr. Martin Luther King aptly demonstrates what this type of stupidity is. He, in summation, states that we know that what we are doing is stupid, however, we reconcile ourselves to doing it. We proceed, at any rate, to do it and do it. Denialists, when it is brought to our attention that our conduct is grounded in stupidity, we may deny or reduce it to a lack of land wisdom.
29. We know that the exclusion of Afrikans from their land is not wise and that it is, in fact, stupid. Still, we do exclude Afrikans or fail to disrupt their exclusion, conscious of the stupidity, if not lack of wisdom, that goes with doing such.
30. Is it proper for some to be oblivious to why we are here? It is not. Nevertheless, if they are ignorant, they are. Ought it be said that the present is not linked with the past? We just arrived, from nowhere, they may be heard saying. Genuinely, some would make such statements innocuously. Our view is that this calls for work of this nature and engagements to be organized.
31. There has not been sufficient time for the rulers to bring about change, some may say. Unlike the barbaric system of apartness, our inclusive and oneness system needs not less than 30 years. Years, in fact, they have got to be an additional 70 years. We need a total of 100 years to achieve what the barbaric and monstrous system achieved within about 8 years.
31. Good luck in your self-destruction, we say. Who are we, after all, to concern ourselves with self-destructors? In fact, it is possible that we may not be correct. It may, after all, not amount to self-destruction. It may as well be that people have time to wait that long. The nearest future, will, it appears, tell.
32. The only challenge is that in the process of self-destruction by the rulers, Afrikans are all destroyed. That is why we are interested in the land subject. Government conduct, through those who operate within the system, affects all Afrikans.
33. Ours, we say, is to solve problems. No need to worry about them (problems). We ought to, ought we not, concern ourselves, without anxiety, with attempting to find solutions.
34. What then is the medication for our land stupidity? Others may assist, as we continue with this conversation, in future. Much appreciated Dr Mangena for bringing our stupidity to our attention! Was it not for our incapacity to comprehend our stupidity, we would seek to change how we have been doing things.
35. Back to the question of whether we are a land stupid nation, Dr Mangena seems to be correct. Assuming that he is not, we, Afrikans, are certainly not land-wise. Since the rulers have demonstrated, and in some instances, have expressed their take on land, why, those of us (Afrikans) who are not part of them, do not we take them on?
Thank you for reading this!
Matome Chidi
In his capacity as the Head of the Unit of the Association, info@Afrikanajustice.co.za, www.afrikanajustice.co.za
[1] Not in a true sense of victory.
[2] We should consider adding to "force/forced" the word “and/or armed removal”.
[3] The Population Registration Act, Act No 30 of 1950.
[4] A person from the racist society held.
[5] A relevant feature of struggle. However, for law development purposes, it would contribute, if it does, very minimally.
[6] Unless such humanity knows race.
[7] So clear in what they sought to achieve that nothing would stop in their way. The right to review and/or appeal was done away with. This, although the Act some compensation. It was, however, what was called actual loss. However, there was no right to appeal against the very act/order of removal from land or a decision to be sent to prison for refusing to be dispossessed.
[8] One page English and the other, you know!
[9] The Trespass Act of 1959 refers.