17 April 1986: White South African Students Speak

Editorial note (19 May 2022):  One of the best “toys” I took with me to South Africa was an Aiwa tape recorder with a multidirectional mike.  It was great for interviews even with several people speaking.  And, it wasn’t much bigger than my hand.

The following discussion with white South African geography students from the University of the Witwatersrand was recorded with my little Aiwa recorder one evening during a field trip.  It might seem irrelevant 36 years later (and eight years before Nelson Mandela’s election as President brought about major changes in South African society).  However, I feel that the topics addressed still have significance today. 

First of all, these students discuss the morality of being a tourist in a country with a repressive government and tremendous inequality.  Should people go on tours, wildlife safaris, etc. in such a country while ignoring its societal ills?  Is it right for them to spend their tourist dollars which help support an illegitimate government whose propaganda whitewashes their impressions of the country?  Or, are they justified in doing so in the hope that some of those dollars will trickle down to the low-paid workers in the tourist industry?  You might want to give this some thought when you are thinking about booking a tour to China.    

Secondly, the concerns of these white students about racism and white privilege protected by an unjust system would sound eerily familiar to many young white people in the United States today.  They feel powerless to change the system yet recognize that they benefit from the inequality.  And they are confused about and fearful of how needed changes will affect their futures.       

This conversation has been edited for clarity and conciseness while maintaining the speakers’ opinions and speaking styles.  I did not use the students' last names when transcribing the tape back in 1986 out of concern that some of their quotes might cause them problems with employment, etc. in the future

17 April 1986, Kloofwaters Farm in the Magaliesburg Range, northwest of Johannesburg

Will:  Do you feel Americans should visit South Africa?

Shane:  Yes I do.  I think that a lot of what the press is saying is propaganda – they are trying to get their readers excited about something.  And violence is what is currently excites people, wherever it might be happening in the world.  So, why not focus on violence in South Africa as well.  The press is looking for a scapegoat and South Africa is an easy target.  And for that reason, Americans should come out here and see that we have our problems, fair enough.  I don’t think that anybody will say we don’t.  But it’s not as bad as some people make out. 

Will:  What should Americans look for here?  What should they be doing here?

Shane:  I don’t think they should come here with any preconceptions at all. That’s very wrong.

Will:  But what do they learn if they just go to the game parks or go hiking?  Or take the standard tours that SATOUR promotes.  Do they really learn what’s going on in the country and what the people are really like?

Shane:  The important thing with any of those tours – just by arriving in the country, they’ll be able to see that the whole situation is much, much more complex than is made out by the press or political leaders.  These people are calling for sanctions but don’t see the dynamics of the different tribes and the cultural conflicts that occur within black African society.  Conflict is seen as black-white.  But, there are so many differences within black society, just as there are within any white society.  Black tribes – Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho, Tswana, whatever – each one is very different.  And because of that, you can’t say it’s just blacks fighting against whites.  I think that as soon as an American came to this country, they’d be able to see it’s much more complex.   Sanctions on white businesses are being used to try to get the black man into power.  But it isn’t the “black man” – it’s Zulus or Xhosas and so forth and they would not be able to share power equally.  And because of that, there would be even worse violence.

Will:  What should be the position of the U.S. government toward South Africa?  If U.S. citizens are saying we should be working for change in South Africa – especially since we have so much money invested here – should the U.S. Government try to exert any influence?

Shane:  Look, the type of sanctions they’ve got on us now aren’t fair.  But they have made the South African government…it’s forced them into a position where they have to change.  I think that change would have occurred without sanctions but not as fast as it is occurring now.  But because of that pressure from outside, it’s occurring much faster than it would have, and I don’t think that’s wrong. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Black tribes – Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho, Tswana, whatever – each one is very different.  And because of that, you can’t say it’s just blacks fighting against whites.  – Shane

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Will:  What should be the position of the U.S. government toward South Africa?  If U.S. citizens are saying we should be working for change in South Africa – especially since we have so much money invested here – should the U.S. Government try to exert any influence?

Shane:  The important thing with any of those tours – just by arriving in the country, they’ll be able to see that the whole situation is much, much more complex than is made out by the press or political leaders.  These people are calling for sanctions but don’t see the dynamics of the different tribes and the cultural conflicts that occur within black African society.  Conflict is seen as black-white.  But, there are so many differences within black society, just as there are within any white society.  Black tribes – Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho, Tswana, whatever – each one is very different.  And because of that, you can’t say it’s just blacks fighting against whites.  I think that as soon as an American came to this country, they’d be able to see it’s much more complex.   Sanctions on white businesses are being used to try to get the black man into power.  But it isn’t the “black man” – it’s Zulus or Xhosas and so forth and they would not be able to share power equally.  And because of that, there would be even worse violence.

Will:  What should be the position of the U.S. government toward South Africa?  If U.S. citizens are saying we should be working for change in South Africa – especially since we have so much money invested here – should the U.S. Government try to exert any influence?

Shane:  Look, the type of sanctions they’ve got on us now aren’t fair.  But they have made the South African government…it’s forced them into a position where they have to change.  I think that change would have occurred without sanctions but not as fast as it is occurring now.  But because of that pressure from outside, it’s occurring much faster than it would have, and I don’t think that’s wrong. 

Michael:  I disagree about the importance of tribal affiliation.  American tourists who come to this country are given a certain stereotyped view of South Africa.  Particularly one of tribal affiliation amongst blacks.  And the tribal affiliation amongst blacks is something that has been used by the National government for a very long time to actually propagate apartheid and to depict white civilization as one which is advanced by Western standards and a black one which is not.  The majority of black citizens, the only background they know is Soweto or whatever township they’re living in.  Soweto is a bigger city than Johannesburg.  So, perpetuating the stereotype of tribalization and an “African society” in this country is in fact playing into the government’s hands by supporting ideas they use to perpetuate apartheid. 

Will:  So you feel that the American who comes here as a visitor, as a tourist – that’s what they see and, in fact, that has a negative impact on what Americans perceive about South Africa? 

Michael:  It would be beneficial if Americans who did come here were not politically naïve.  Politically naïve tourists are in fact detrimental to the country for the simple reason that they are receptive to those stereotypes which the tourist industry and the government have chosen to perpetuate for a very long time.  Those stereotypes are still very prevalent in the tourist industry. 

                  Modern campus of the University of the Witwatersrand (aka “Wits”) in Johannesburg, 1986.

Will:  And so, the politically-aware American who comes here – what sort of things should he or she be doing other than taking game safaris, if they want to find out what South Africa really is?

Michael:  There were tours through Soweto that were organized by the West Rand Administration Board.  We went on that tour basically as a joke and found that the areas that were selected for that tour were very specific.  And those were areas that were renovated due to state housing schemes and the more affluent areas of Pimville where people like the mayor live.  And these are black people who have actually embraced apartheid and have voluntarily chosen to do so.  Whereas the less affluent areas such as Orlando West and other areas which are reminiscent of the shanty towns of Rio de Janeiro are not encountered on the West Rand Administration Board tour.

Will:  So then an American who comes here and wants to see Soweto – how are they going to see the whole picture?

Michael:  The point is that with the present situation, although the emergency powers do exist in Soweto, you do not need a pass to go to certain areas.  To characterize all the townships as absolutely unsafe – as to bodily safety – is actually untrue.  There are areas to which you can go and by asking the residents of Soweto, you can avoid the areas where there is trouble.  It would be feasible for a sort of briefing to be given to American tourists…

Will: …and who would give that briefing?

Michael:  Well, it wouldn’t be the South African tourist industry.  Clearly all they desire is American money flowing in.  Because the South African tourist industry – the people who benefit from tourists coming into this country are the whites who control that industry, but not, in fact, the blacks who work in that industry.  For example, it would be very pertinent for American tourists to ask how much black tour guides are paid.  Having a black guide is insufficient – blacks may be given responsible positions but the wage that a black receives is an issue.  Secondly, you must compare the wage he receives to the wage that agricultural, industrial, or mining laborers receive.  The idea of stereotyping South Africa while not visiting areas which are both fraught with conflict and poverty is to deny the true essence of South African society which is one which is fraught with tension.  You see, clearly some black people have embraced apartheid simply because they have received preferential treatment.  That exists in any society.  But that does not negate the reality for the majority of black citizens.  Therefore, to go on a game safari and perhaps ask the black guide how much he receives as payment is actually insufficient.  You must actually visit the black homelands and mining compounds which are perhaps the worst example of exploitation in the country.

Will: Yes, but someone was talking yesterday about the mine tours and how they try to whitewash the conditions in the mines.  What would a tourist find by going on a mine tour?  You could go on the standard mine tour in Jo’burg where they have tribal dances and take you on a little tour of the mine.  Wouldn’t the tourist just see what has been sanitized for them?

Michael:  Tribal dancing actually reinforces tribal stereotypes and is used very consciously by the mining industry and has been for a very long time.  Tribal dancing is meant to emphasize the division between tribes and the extent to which people are affiliated to tribes.  Whereas, articles have been written about detribalization which show that tribal affiliation is in fact a minor attribute of the society in which we live.  The absurdity is that everyone in Soweto is considered affiliated to a tribe and is, in fact, not a citizen of South Africa even though he has never seen a homeland nor been exposed to any degree of tribal life.  And yet, he is considered to be a citizen of a tribal homeland.  Ninety percent of the people living in Soweto have no cognizance of what tribal life is all about. 

[An argument ensues between Michael and Shane over the importance of tribal affiliation.] 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 …you’ll get one tourist in 100 who will actually find out that there is more behind the façade.         – Beverly

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Beverly:  When you look at the issues of migrant labor and homelands, it’s really interesting that whites decided, “Oh, black labor is what we need in the mines.  We’ll rip them out of their rural settlements.  We want them in the mines.”  And now you have influx control and a strong incentive to keep them working in the mines,

Will: So do you think then, if Americans came here as visitors, they would be able to understand or even get an inkling of those sorts of issues?  Or do you think they would only see the lions in Kruger Park, so why should they even come?

Beverly:  I wouldn’t say they shouldn’t come.  What I would ask is, how much insight would a tourist get?

Will:  So do you want Americans to come here? 

Michael:  No.

Beverly:  I have no objection to it.  I’m sure they would have more awareness if they did come here than if they didn’t.  You actually see something of South Africa.  You’re not just hearing about it second hand. 

Will:  But Michael says that if you come here and do the tours designed by SATOUR, it only perpetuates the stereotypes. 

Beverly:  It’s difficult because you’ll get one tourist in 100 who will actually find out that there is more behind the façade.

Will:  And 99 of them won’t get it?

Beverly:  Exactly.  But maybe it’s worthwhile for the one who does.

Michael:  The point is that the one who does get it isn’t generally here in the capacity as a tourist.  I think they come here in the capacity of trying to find out exactly what is going on which is entirely different from the person who says, you know, “I climbed the goddamned Drakensburg and I arrived on the top and there were three Americans sitting on deck chairs with umbrellas.  And I’d climbed about six hours.

Will:  How did the three Americans get there – in their Land Rover?

Michael:  I don’t know - maybe they were dropped by helicopter.  That sort of tourist is not going to gather what is going on in this country.  

Lindsey:  You get a lot of people coming here from other countries to work.  They get a different view than people who are just travelling through.  A lot of them have black servants and they…

Beverly:  Do you think they fall into the patterns? 

Lindsey:  A lot of them do, but some of them try.  It’s very easy to just fall into the patterns.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You get a lot of people coming here from other countries to work.  They get a different view than people who are just travelling through.   – Lindsey

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Michael:  We are naïve about the role of the American press.  Regarding sanctions by Americans, the press clearly must play a very large role in that.  So it’s a different thing to admit American journalists who are going to come here, assess the situation honestly without a definite political agenda and then go back and report the truth as they perceived it to be as opposed to what they’ve been told before they arrive.  And then, they go back and call for sanctions and call for definite measures as opposed to the tourist who arrives here on a sightseeing tour.  Is sight-seeing the issue and the conflict in the country incidental?  That cannot be the case.  Either you come here to find the truth or you come here to look at sights. 

Will:  You can’t do both?

Michael:  You can look at sights incidentally, but the point is that they are irrelevant to the present South African situation.

Will:  But it’s all part of the country.

Michael:  The point is that Kruger Park is not going to contribute to or deter the revolution in this country.  So, if you come here on a fact-finding mission on a personal level, you can go to the park but that must be an incidental facet.  The correct intention is to come here to find out the truth about the situation, the conflicts in this country, and then make a decision to convey a specific belief amongst the American public through what you write.  You cannot remain absolutely impartial and make your decision based on what you’ve encountered in Kruger Park.

Will:  I might be inclined to go to Kruger and ask foreign tourists why they’re here in order to see how aware they are.  Are they strictly here as tourists or do they have any awareness of the country above and beyond that of the average guy on the streets of New York or L.A?

Michael:  Fair enough.  What I’m saying is that as much as that might be your function, the fact is that the people who come here should have a commitment to discovering the true situation.  So if you find out that the majority of tourists don’t have that conviction, you shouldn’t simply report that they don’t.  You should say that they are wrong in not doing so, in my opinion.  To deny the complexity of the situation is, in fact, to deny the essence of the situation.  The complexities are what we are – we are not lions, nor are we simply conflict.

Will:  Does there have to be a political reason why people come here? 

Michael:  Yes.

Beverly:  It’s like going to any country where there is war or other problems.  It might have great tourist sights.  You don’t have to go there just for war or their problems.

Michael: Even a short stay in this country must show you the extent to which the people are politicized.  Any action, not just in a Marxist sense, is not necessarily a political action.  You cannot escape the political consequences of what you do.  Whether you do it inadvertently or consciously is irrelevant.  The fact is that there are political consequences of your actions. 

Beverly:  But it’s over-politicized, I think.

Michael:  Look, whether you consider it over-politicized in this situation…

Beverly:  the fact is that it is…

Michael: …the point is that it is.  It’s an absolutely political society.  Eighty percent of the country would probably consider it under-politicized, not over-politicized.  The point is that tourism is a political issue.  Firstly, because you’re coming here spending money in a certain way from which certain people benefit.  Secondly, you receive impressions which are encouraged by the tourist industry which is supported by the government.  Can you then say it’s an apolitical issue? 

                                         Wits geography students doing sketches of the Magaliesburg area landscape.

Will:  The fact is that not a lot of Americans are coming here now.  According to Eduard DuPlessey, the North American head of SATOUR in New York City, they are not coming here because they are afraid.  They think that the whole country, as portrayed on American television, is one big race riot, and they’ll be shot if they come here.  In fact, several of my friends back in the U.S. said, “Mahoney, you’re crazy to go to South Africa.  You’ll be shot.”  Is this true or false?

Michael:  On the one hand you might not be shot, but you might deserve to be shot!  If you’re not shot it’s because the situations which are chosen for you are those which certain people want to be secure.  But if you were in other situations, you would be shot.  So can you then come here and claim that the fact that you are not shot is the reason for encouraging tourism?

Will:  [John enters the room]  John, we’re talking about whether American tourists should come to South Africa.

John: They’re even more welcome than their dollars [general laughter].

Can you [the tourist] possibly glean all aspects of this society when we who have lived our whole lives here cannot?  - Michael

Shane:  There is that whole thing about the fear of coming here.  I’ve got a lot of friends in America who write and say, “We saw more trouble on the TV last night.  I do hope you’re all right.”  To me, sitting in my good northern suburbs home, nice and far away from the townships, it’s fine.  It’s a good life.

Michael:  But given a year or two, it might not be all right.

Shane:  Well, it might even be all right then. What we’re saying is, “Should tourists come here now?” 

Michael:  But we’re asking, “Is coming here a political issue?”  Because by saying that they should come here because it’s safe, is in fact denying that coming here is a political statement.  You can’t judge the issue of whether to come here or not on safety.

Will:  But SATOUR would argue that it is a political issue for Americans to go to mainland China right now.  Americans would not favor their type of government, but they still go there because they are interested in the culture of China.  So why shouldn’t they go to South Africa just because they disagree with some of the government’s policies?

Michael:  We’re not discussing tourism as a sort of concept of American foreign policy.  Whether America claims it is right or wrong to come here is irrelevant to us.  What I’m claiming is that it is in fact incorrect to come here without attempting to learn the facts.  You are making a rightist political statement by coming here.  Can you possibly glean all aspects of this society when we who have lived here all our lives cannot?

Will:   That’s a good point.

Michael:  We’re left with fears and doubts at present that are incredible in that they are not just factual issues but are emotional as well.  Can you possibly categorize what we say and the other opinions you hear?  By assuming that you are sort of traversing the political spectrum – speaking to rights, speaking to moderates, speaking to left. Whatever – how can you categorize those beliefs when we who have been involved in the complexities and nuances of the entire situation for so long and are left with doubt and fear?  How can you expect to gain a degree of insight which permits you to write about those issues within such a limited time period?  I do not think it is feasible.  I think that the only thing you can learn is that there is tension, there is doubt, there is fear on all sides.  And the fact that there are certain causes in this society which are just and those which are unjust.  You can’t learn that from simple one-to-one interviews.

Corrine:  I agree totally, Will, but isn’t that what you’re trying to do?  If you can just report that we’ve lived here our whole lives and we’re mixed up.  Isn’t that just valuable in itself?

Will:  I'd like to think so.

Michael:  Yes. 

Corrine:  Just let people know that there is no way that you can clearly explain the situation. Because everybody’s got doubts and fears in their own minds.  I think that’s quite valuable. 

Deborah:  I think you’re starting to realize that, to a certain extent, you’re hearing from the reformed.  We do not represent the views of the majority of the South African populace.  Whether we’re left, right or center, we are exposed to many ideas on campus.  No matter how much we might try not to be touched by those ideas, we are.  We all know there are problems, but I think this group realizes that far more than any others out there.  If you go out and interview people, you’ll find that a large percentage of the population ignore those problems completely, and even refuse to speak about them.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I know what’s wrong with this country, and I know it needs to be changed but I’m also as scared as the next person of change.  – Deborah

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Deborah:  You also need to realize that we are in a very difficult position…well, I am.  I can only speak for myself…I know what’s wrong with this country, and I know it needs to be changed but I’m also as scared as the next person of change.  From a white middle class perspective, I lead a very comfortable life and I can see what’s wrong.  But to be quite honest, to change it would mean changing my lifestyle.  And that’s the problem that faces many of us.  Are we prepared to give up what we’ve grown up with for something we’re not sure is going to work anyway?  Because we’ve seen evidence around us that perhaps it doesn’t work, or perhaps it hasn’t worked but it could work.

Will:  You said earlier that the people in this group are not representative.  Is that because you’re informed students or because you are English-speaking whites?

Deborah:  I think it would partially be a little of both.  Even within our age group, we have a lot of trouble being accepted.  Wits has a very bad name.

Will:  You mean accepted by Afrikaners?

Deborah:  No, by other English-speakers.  It’s important for you to realize that a lot of English speakers don’t share our points of view.  I grew up in Bloemfontein in the Orange Free State.  I used to go home at holiday time, and there was no way either the English-speaking people or the Afrikaners shared my political point of view.  And there was no way I could even get it across to them.

Michael:  And you’re political point of view is moderate.  It’s in no way extreme.

Deborah:  Yes, I suppose it’s really unfair of me to comment because I’m one of those terrible people who sit on the fence most of the time because I don’t know what to do.  Actually I do have some left points of view but never right.  So that makes me a rather mixed-up person.  

Shane:  I don’t think you have to say you’re a mixed-up person.  You’re just a person who is trying to find an answer which is better than someone who is trying to stick to ideals which perhaps won’t work.

Deborah:  But you see, I’ve been overseas.  I lived in Italy for a year.  And the problems in Italy, while they’re not legal, they are just as grave as ours are.  Northern Italians hate southern Italians, but they hate them with an absolute passion.  There is no way that I have ever met white South Africans who hate black people as much as the northern Italians hate southerners.  

Will:  Yes, my father is half Italian.  His mother’s parents came from Milan in northern Italy.  I remember that he never has had much use for Sicilians.  [laughter]

Deborah:  The way they treat the southern Italians.  I wouldn’t even treat my pet dog that way.  So I used to sit there and think, “Are we so bad?”  And the Italian situation was perhaps the wrong thing for a mixed-up 19-year-old to see, because you start to doubt.  It’s easy to be radical if you’ve never stepped out of your country and looked at it from the outside.  I’m sure Michael would tear me to pieces on that, and I can see his point of view.

Will:  Last night we were talking about how words, language, and terminology have become compromised in this society.  You were calling yourself a moderate and to me, “moderate” is a nice word…

Beverly:  We were speaking about the word “conservative” and how TV has changed the meaning of the word.  TV has a great impact because TV introduces new meanings for words. 

Deborah:  In South Africa, “moderate” has a particularly bad connotation. 

Michael:  “Moderate” in this country actually implies “right”.

Deborah:  Yes, right of center.

Michael:  Americans go around claiming to be moderate regarding the situation in this country.  However, “moderate” has lost all meaning when polarization doesn’t allow a person to remain detached.  Moderate actually implies detached.  And that is very different from the use of moderate in other countries.  Here, moderate means we are not prepared to take a stand. 

Deborah:  Don’t you think our use of moderate has been influenced by the Student Moderate Alliance because they are Nationalists [supporters of the Afrikaner-led National Party which ruled South Africa from 1948 until 1993]?

Michael:  They are fascists.

Deborah:  Yes, they are fascists.  But, Will, you need to tell Americans that we are confused.  We’re caught in the middle.

Michael:  But we’re also confused about the meaning of change for us.

Deborah:  You’re right!

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

You Americans have problems of your own in Libya, and I’m not going to blame you personally for that!  – Donald

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Donald:  Will, how’s your beer, bud? 

Will:  Thanks.  I’m good for now.  Donald, do you think it’s a good idea for Americans to come here as visitors?

Donald:  I reckon if Americans can play cricket, they can come here.

Will:  Well, I’m afraid they can’t.

Donald:  If they drink gin and tonics, if they’re prepared to party, if they haven’t got too much hair, and they spend a long time at the university, I reckon they’re great.  We could be here all night.  I’m not half as drunk as this is all going to come across as.  I don’t want you to worry about it.  You Americans have problems of your own in Libya, and I’m not going to blame you personally for that.  I’m going to go finish my bottle of wine [general laughter]

[Shane and Beverly continue the discussion about ideals, communism, etc.]