Why We Shouldn't Seek the Greater Pain
I reflected recently on the seemingly ever-more-popular phrase-dropping of “Black Pain”, “Black Suffering” or the more moderate and inclusive “Black Experience”. The main concept of this argument/ideology/phenomenon seems to be that people that identify or are identified racially as “black” have a fundamentally different experience (mostly compared to white people) that is so unique and inherent to one's skin colour that it can never be experienced or understood by a person from another race.
While, in the literal sense, the claims that the experience is unique and inherent are true (for now, until gene therapy makes race as fully changeable as gender), I am disgusted by the reckless use of this difference as a weapon to bludgeon attempted reconciliation. Perfect understanding is not necessary where there is tolerance – otherwise heterosexual marriages would never work.
To keep this short, I will limit this discussion to two examples: a black man and a white man, in South Africa. Both are relatively poor, but make do by working odd jobs.
The black man, who I shall leave nameless in this to spare him the hate associated with my open discussion of the issues of our nation, is a long-standing friend of my family. He is, by some measures, poor, but his regular and less-regular jobs bring in enough of a combined salary for him to maintain two modest homes, in Gauteng and the Western Cape. He has a family, and several children ranging from early teens to a recent matric graduate. He works hard, and spends more time away from his family than he would like, but lives comfortably by his own hard work.
While he is fortunate, to be sure, to have several regular gardening/odd job contracts, it is because of his good work ethic and his reliability that my family trusts him with our safety (he has access to at least two properties owned by my family). We have loaned him money, provided transport in difficult situations, helped finance a generator to provide light for his children to study by when Eskom fails them, and so on.
We did that because he is a friend and a decent human being, not because he is black – does that heal the wounds of old injustice? Does it protect him from racism? No, it doesn't and cannot, but it lays the groundwork for a better world, a world where it is not all about “Black Pain”, “White Guilt”, “White Supremacy” or any of the thousands of other lines in the sand that cut us off from each other. We give and help because we have and can, not out of some manufactured racially-defined guilt. And in this – tolerance and generosity rather than vengeance and forced equality – I see the hope I have for South Africa.
For the second example: the is a white man, who I know far less well than the black man from the first example. Every now and then, he does the round through the street I live on, and asks for any work we might have. Like the man from the first example, he makes do with what odd jobs he finds. On the surface, assuming that “Black Pain” is as universally applicable as people claim it to be, this man should be better off. There is even a very good chance that this man has better qualifications than the man from the first example, technically.
Here are a few hypothetical situations, for these persons:
First, they ask door-to-door for work. Few and far between is the person who would wait for a white person to come looking for odd jobs, since white people are only a fraction of the population and an even smaller portion of the borderline poor (the latter fact is a favourite amongst anti-white critics, but is becoming ever less true). Both men are likely to get the work as and when there is work available, and despite what supposed race-conflict specialists would claim, it is very rare for the payment or salary to differ notably between black or white odd job men. Work is more scarce than people.
Second, they go looking for temporary work as a builder. We assume equal experience here, but beyond a minimum threshold, more experience changes little. BEE (or BBBEE) encourages companies to hire black staff, by providing relevant benefits up to and including a significant preferential advantage for government contracts (see http://businesstech.co.za/news/government/93590/how-government-plans-to-legalise-corruption-helen-zille/). All things being equal, any company has a monetary reason to pick the black man. And in all but the smallest businesses, money is king; that is how companies are supposed to run and do indeed run.
Third, a slightly more unusual example, but very important: the two men are equally accused of racism. Let us suppose that the each supposedly called a person of the other colour “...a fucking lying black/white!” or some such racially charged insult. Based on recent incidents, and the reaction of the public to a government announcement denouncing black-on-white racism alongside white-on-black racism, this is my best guess:
The black man is reviled by a good portion of the white population, and a quiet minority of the black population. A large, vocal portion of the black population rallies behind this man, returning to the mantra that “only white people can be racist”, ignoring the definition of racism in favour of the more popular, visceral and hateful option. He might lose some of his regular odd jobs and the like, but even that is likely to lead to social attacks on his erstwhile employers. The black man does not see the inside of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), much less suffer any formal consequence.
The white man is denounced, insulted, and accused of being a racist down to his core (public opinion would not care whether the accusation is true. You know that as well as I do). He loses any jobs he might have done for black people; no company will hire him afterwards, to avoid association if not for moral reasons. The attacks possibly escalate to a point where it becomes physical, and the white man fears for the safety of his family, part of a minority, amongst a hostile majority. The white man has a formal charge laid against him at the SAHRC, or brought before a judicial court if the recently proposed anti-racism legislation is passed. Whether he is present or absent, without much consideration for his situation, he is given a fine of several thousand rand – draining whatever savings he has, even as his opportunities to work vanish.
My assumptions might be flawed, to be sure, but this is based off people I have seen, whose situations I know. That last example in particular is based on several recent incidents of racism and the consequent reactions of the public and the relevant organisations. I doubt any rational South African can deny that there is at least a core of truth to this.
What this comparison shows is that, for a poorer individual (exactly the people who are most vulnerable), the “Black Pain” and “White Guilt” narratives can easily cause inequality in the treatment of that individual that is biased against white people. To broaden the matter, just consider how many black people get away daily with threats of white genocide on social media.
Black people in South Africa are the majority: they can vote a party in or out of office; they occupy most government positions; they are provided preferential treatment by extensive legislation… They have all that power, yet the claim that black people cannot be racist because they have no power persists.
While we keep up this narrative of the “Greater Pain”, an argument over which race is most deserving or was most disadvantaged or owes another race something, we can never stand united. In the troubled global economy and situation, that means that we will eventually fall apart and become a failed nation.
Instead of pursuing the Greater Racial Pain, or the Uniquely Bad Experience, let us do our best to understand each others' pains and experiences, and focus on working together to help the poor, the ones who really have a greater pain and a bleaker experience. As long as we focus on educating the less fortunate and aiding the poor, we will (by the very nature of the act) automatically split our efforts amongst races and cultures and genders as they are needed.
Is it not as important to build a brighter future, even at our own expense, than to focus on petty moral victories and vaguely defined redress? Particularly when, like with Nkandla, the redress mostly lines the pockets of corrupt politicians?