The FBJ's 'blacker than thou' racial reasoning is political suicide

The most exciting feature of the SAHRC ruling against the Forum of Black Journalists is the loud echo of black voices that have welcomed the decision and denounced the latter’s insistence on its right to exclude whites on the basis of skin colour.

This reveals that more and more blacks are willing to turn against their so-called “own people” to promote racial justice and uphold constitutional ideals and principles.

It is an encouraging sign that more blacks in the mainstream are ready and willing not only to embrace and support the Constitution, but also to be seen as active agents against racism.

These include self-proclaimed public intellectual Xolela Mangcu, the SAHRC’s Jody Kollapen and Tsidiso Thipanyane, Sowetan‘s big editor Thabo Leshilo, Talk Radio 702 anchor Redi Direko, security analyst Prince Mashele, Sanef chair Jovial Rantao and columnists like Justice Malala, among others.

What was most disturbing about the FBJ furore was the ranting and raving from diehard militants who refuse to accept the ruling and continue to want to promote the FBJ “pro-black and not anti-white” stance simply because it is considered treacherous to side with whites even when they are right.

We do need an open and honest discourse about the short-sightedness of blacks who fail to uphold constitutional and moral decisions simply because whites cannot be seen to be in the right.

This failure of nerve was manifest when a number of leading figures such as the FBJ’s Abbey Makoe, academic Sipho Seepe, columnist Jon Qwelane, land activist Andile Mgxitama, Nelson Mandela Foundation spokesperson Oupa Ngwenya, Azapo’s Mosibudi Mangena and Lybon Mabasa found the ruling “a problem”.

Of course, they were caught off guard when the SAHRC ruled that the blanket exclusion of white journalists from FBJ membership amounted to unfair discrimination and was therefore against the Constitution.

This showed up the predictable inability of supposedly visionary black leading figures and political commentators to be open-minded and receptive to the idea that the democratic and constitutional South Africa of today is, largely, different from 1968 when Steve Biko founded his Black Consciousness Movement.

But it is a good sign that there are more credible blacks who have shown the courage not only to differ with this “blacker than thou” stance, but also to say publicly that blacks need to uphold the Constitution and consolidate the creation of a non-racial society.

Of course, it is an outright lie for anyone to say blacks have the right to discriminate against others on the basis of skin colour or to suggest that non-blacks lack the intuitive connection to support a black cause, whatever that is.

Ever since Jody Kollapen made known the SAHRC’s ruling, the FBJ has suffered a serious blow to its profile and credibility, which has seen it likened to fringe freaks like the AWB, for instance.

The very fact that an increasing number of black opinion leaders could utter publicly that the FBJ political stance is wrong shows that blacks are now more concerned about what is right rather than the colour of the person who points out the wrong.

The point here is not simply that white Talk Radio 702 would have no trouble shouting from the rooftops that the SAHRC ruling is to be welcomed; it is also that the echo from an increasing number of black voices reveals that blacks are, now, not afraid to agree with whites if their stance is morally correct and supported by the Constitution.

It is for this reason that the FBJ has painted itself into a corner and now seeks to mobilise other, like-minded blacks to support its stance.

Of course, many have pointed to the example of organisations such as the Black Management Forum and its affiliates that have remained “black” without discriminating against whites or undermining their own political integrity.

In self-defence, the FBJ has cited the existence of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies and Afrikaanse Sakekamer, for instance, to justify its policy of racial exclusivity.

Its argument goes that if white exclusive organisations can exist without interference, the FBJ, too, can be excused for pursuing programmes that can only appeal to blacks.

This chimes well with apartheid thinking and fails to recognise that this society is undergoing a fundamental transition, however slow, that is under-girded by constitutional principles.

We should all be happy that more and more blacks are concerned about discrimination based on skin colour and shattering the stereotype that blacks will stand together just because of similarity of skin colour.

This development renders visible highly credible and vocal black voices that deserve to be encouraged and supported for their stance against discrimination based on skin colour.

But how could the FBJ have got itself into this bind?

It now runs the risk not only of condemning itself to the freak fringe, but also of being perceived as a racist organisation that cannot adapt to new constitutional politics.

First, there are still far too many political diehards who hold the “blacker than thou” ideological stance. These are black people who exaggerate the effects of colonialism and, unfortunately, were born under apartheid. Sadly, they hold on to degradation to which they were subjected and desire to remain black by any means necessary.

But the new times, especially the past 14 years, demand that we recognise the achievement of the struggle, which was for a constitutional, non-racial society.

Secondly, “blacker than thou” diehards expect other people, both black and white, to understand and sympathise with them simply because of what they were supposedly subjected to under apartheid. Their self-obsession with skin colour is enough justification for anything.

Thus everybody should accept that they system owes black people something. So, it is considered betrayal if any other black does not close rank with the “blacker-than-thous” because they are the ones who know what true blackness means.

Thirdly, this ideological orientation not only promotes black victimology but is also a sure way of preserving old, tired apartheid thinking, which makes it easier to point fingers at the guilty party — whites!

Thus the idea of black people rallying around their skin colour and not justice and equality before the law reinforces the false notion of a permanent moral high ground. If all blacks agree, it makes it easier to discriminate against other people based on skin colour.

This is the ideological orientation that has plunged the FBJ into its credibility crisis and got its supporters caught up in racial reasoning.

Of course, it is absurd that people should agree simply because of skin colour and discriminate against others for the same reason.

This is no longer a white, racist country but a beautiful land that promotes the ideals of non-racism, non-sexism and unity of all people, irrespective of colour, status, religion or political creed.

Fortunately, more and more blacks are doing away with racial reasoning.

This will, inevitably, make it easier for the realisation of a truly non-racial South Africa where people will be judged by the content of their character and not the colour of the skin.