No, it don’t matter. (According to the rules of grammar, it should be ‘it doesn’t matter’.) Being black or white is not supposed to matter, but then, in South Africa, unfortunately, it does. It has always mattered, at least within living memory, and there is no indication that this will not be the case in the foreseeable future.

It might not have mattered to Michael Jackson, as the repetitive lyrics of Black Or White – “It don’t matter if you’re black or white” – remind us. But then it should not simply be about skin colour; it should never be. It should be about more – much more. At the very least, it should be about ability (skills), capability and commitment. In the immortal words of Jesse Owens, the great American track and field athlete and four-time Olympic gold medallist in the 1936 games, held in Berlin, in Nazi Germany, “It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white. It only matters if you’re fast or slow.”

Unfortunately, South Africa has still not progressed past the binary racial distinction of black or white. As such distinction persists, it continues to divide us.

Why do South Africans continue with this visual divide? There are a few things in one’s life over which one does not have any control or say, or that one is unable to change. Arguably, the most prominent are the choice of one’s parents, the choice of one’s family and the choice of the colour of one’s skin. The last mentioned should not be one’s sole distinguishing feature – it was so wrong in the past, and it is so wrong in the present.

In his article, which was published in the Mail & Guardian on April 8 and was titled ‘Race reinvented for post-apartheid SA’, Jeff Rudin commented on President Jacob Zuma’s invitation, during a speech at a rally on March 21, to enter his ‘phantasmagorical world’. The President had said: “This year, we have chosen the theme South Africans United Against Racism for Human Rights Day. We have done so due to the need to continue working together to eliminate racism and its manifestations in our country. Our mission since 1994 is to create a united, nonracial, nonsexist, democratic and prosperous South Africa. This is the task of every South African . . . The preamble of the Constitution calls upon all of us to heal the divisions of the past . . . A lot has been done since 1994 to promote nonracialism, reconciliation, inclusion and unity.” Rudin, however, offers an alternative perception, namely that “we have not only perpetuated apartheid divisions, exclusions and disunities but, worst of all, imposed them on the born-frees, the inheritors of the nonracial South Africa whose creation Zuma claims to be government’s ‘mission’ since 1994.”

Then there is Professor Gerhard Maré’s book, Declassified: Moving Beyond the Dead End of Race in South Africa, which was released on April 15, 2015. It comments on how and why race classifications have been kept alive 25 years after the much-hated Population Registration Act was repealed. Maré writes: “Twenty years after the end of apartheid, race still continues to play a role in South African society. Now, however, it is a black majority government that is demanding and maintaining race thinking, in an effort to redress the discrimination of the past. Both the Employment Equity Act and the Black Economic Empowerment Act, for instance, use the racial categories of apartheid to achieve their ends, but the demand to classify people racially extends beyond business to many other areas of life. Ironically, in a society that is constitutionally committed to nonracialism, race thinking and race classification have been carried forward unthinkingly from our past. Not only does the rationale for such continuation not address the real concerns of our society, but the system of classifying carries inevitable seeds of conflict within itself. What is more, the classification of fellow human beings into races remains a crime against humanity, no matter what justification is offered.”

Our political leaders, the same people who pronounce that South Africa’s “rich diversity makes us stronger”, tend to continue reminding us of our visual differences, doing so at every opportunity, which simply continues to fuel racial prejudice. The Citizen newspaper of November 7 quoted Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema as saying: “We are not calling for the slaughter of white people‚ at least for now . . . The rightful owners of the land are black people. No white person is a rightful owner of the land here in South Africa and the whole of the African continent.”

Hardly a week later, on November 15, the media reported that two white men faced assault charges after a video showing a black man being forced into a coffin had gone viral on social media. The perpetuation of hate simply due to the difference in skin colour is most disturbing. It cannot be allowed to continue. Just a day later, on November 16, News24 reported that the statistician-general had told Parliament that “the number of black students who graduate from university, compared with their white counterparts, is totally unacceptable”.

According to the statistician-general, in the 1980s, for every black graduate, there were 1.2 white graduates [but the current rate] is . . . six white graduates for every black graduate. He continued: “These numbers are declaring a horror, to put it bluntly. [This] is totally unacceptable.”

What about the white students then, if we want to repeat the racial narration? So, are their achievements nullified? Have their achievements been at the expense of black students? Surely not. I am of the view that this state of affairs cannot simply be attributable to a difference in skin colour; this would be too simplistic an explanation for a most complex problem. What is the explanation then? Well, according to the results of a survey conducted by the statistician-general’s office: “Education was only number 18 on the list of priorities for politicians and it would continue to be a problem until it was prioritised.” And what about the emphasis being placed on the yearly matric results – considered to be “perhaps the most important indicator of education in South Africa”? In its present form, our basic education system is delivering students who are not sufficiently equipped to cope at university level.

Any change, without exception, has to start at ‘grassroots’ level, and should be inclusive in its application. If the intention is to be transformational, then this is where real empowerment should commence. But, contradictorily, for its transformation, South Africa seems to favour trickle-down economics, which simply benefits the wealthy and the privileged, and does nothing to improve the lives of ordinary South Africans.

Springbok Rugby Capture
As I concluded this article, only hours earlier, the Springbok rugby team, which a New Zealand website described on October 11 as possibly “the worst South African team in history”, had lost 20–18, its first loss ever to lowly ranked Italy. On October 11, the Springboks had recorded their worst-ever home defeat against the All Blacks, with the very same website stating that “ignorant selectors, quotas and the European exodus are the reasons why the Springboks are a team in ruin.” What a woeful year 2016 has been for South African rugby! The Springboks have played twelve games, losing seven, drawing one and winning only four, with 334 points being scored against the team, while scoring only 257 points. The Springboks were scheduled to play their final game of 2016 – against Wales – on November 26.

Back to the Italian rugby team. One of the coaches is South African born, its technical adviser, who orchestrated the team’s defensive display is South African, and two players, who were both fielded, are South African born. But the two players are not the only ones – the South African Rugby Annual listed over 280 players playing abroad at the end of 2015, with the number for 2016 said to be much higher. So, why are so many players, and coaches for that matter, plying their trade overseas? This is, quite evidently, something that South African rugby can ill afford.

Word of the Year
On November 16, Oxford dictionary editors announced that their word of the year is ‘post-truth’, a term sometimes used to describe the current political climate. Apparently, the use of this word increased by 2 000% between 2015 and 2016. It is often used in the phrase ‘post-truth politics’ and is defined as belonging to a time in which truth has become irrelevant. It is time for all to be honest about race.