Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
22 August 2025 | Story Dr Nombulelo Shange | Photo Supplied
Dr Nombulelo Shange
Dr Nombulelo Shange is a sociology lecturer at the University of the Free State (UFS).

Opinion article by Dr Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, University of the Free State 


 

The rising xenophobic violence and exclusion towards African nationals from outside of South Africa is increasingly becoming an emotive issue that is impossible to engage and unpack. In the social-media, “Trumpification” age we live in today, truth-telling and evidence are secondary or even completely irrelevant against the loud, “smart-sounding opinions” rooted in lies and misinformation spread online. Some have used statistics to show that foreigners only make up roughly 4% of our population, which is significant, but not enough to account for our rising unemployment and South Africans’ difficulty in accessing social services and goods such as education and healthcare. There are bigger challenges rooted in our incomplete revolution, rooted in coloniality, where resources and land were left at the hands of the white oppressor, in exchange for “peace”. There are bigger challenges rooted in corruption and poor governance. But even with these realities, many bury their heads in the sand and opt to believe the incomplete story that foreigners are our single greatest problem. 

 

Self-inflicted harm 

Many others have turned to history as a reminder of how African countries in different ways, aided our armed struggle and apartheid resistance, warning that we might need the continent soon and we would have alienated all of our neighbours if we continue down this path. Others have turned to politics and economics, which show us the importance of having strong economic ties with neighbouring countries to ensure growth and development. We saw this in part historically with the European Union and we see it today with the rise of Asian markets like China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and others. Some of the pluralistic approaches to the rapid growth of many of these Asian markets is in relaxing borders to enable the flow of people, ideas, technology, money and resources. But South Africans continue to respond by fighting for the isolating barriers put up by colonialism and later apartheid in order to strengthen their cruel inhumane policies and stronghold against black people. 

We often do this to our own detriment as black people and people of colour, structures such as Operation Dudula and March on March, seldom march to white schools in the suburbs to demand that white people prove their citizenship and belonging. They do this in predominantly black or mixed areas, applying a self-imposed apartheid dompas system, that limits our movements. They ignore the fact that many South Africans themselves are undocumented because of a variety of historical and contemporary issues and struggles related to accessing important services like Home Affairs. They base many of their strategies on hateful intangible stereotypes like the belief that foreigners are dark, cannot speak South African languages or pronounce specific words. The ideas around what it means to be South African are usually very linear and often prioritise namely Nguni culture and languages. So, if you are not a light skinned, Zulu/Nguni person, without your ID, you find yourself at risk of being harmed or being denied important services like healthcare in an emergency for example. We are too quick to forget the lessons of the COVID-19 pandemic; illness does not care who you are, what race or nationality you are, it spreads and places all of us at risk. Denying foreigners access to healthcare, while many of them live in overcrowded black townships, places black South Africans in harm’s way and can lead to a public health crisis in areas where people were struggling to access healthcare long before the influx of foreigners in the country. 

 

Silence and inaction of our leaders

Noticeable in this whole mess and scary new norm, is the silence and inaction of our leaders. The violent and harmful actions of South Africans can in part be explained by their desperate state stemming from poverty, unemployment, and violent crimes experienced today. The tensions can in part be explained by a lack of adequate awareness of the diverse historical and contemporary importance of the continent and our immediate neighbours for our own growth and development. The overwhelming silence of our leaders is hard to make sense of. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leaders remain some of the few leaders that condemn this violence and call for a united Africa. It is believed this stance even cost EFF supporters in the 2024 elections, but they still continue to hold onto this important ethical stance, while more prominent leaders shy away from the issue. Many of these leaders were themselves either born or raised in exile or started their own families outside of the country and were the direct beneficiaries of the kindness and sacrifice that many African countries showed us during apartheid. In this new climate of having to prove “South Africanness” and therefore belonging gymnastics, many of them would have their belonging questioned. But rather than call out the violence and put protections in place, while creating awareness on diverse complexities that create “South Africanness”, our leaders are silent. And perhaps more startling, is that our government is partly made up of a political party that campaigned on the hate of foreigners. Including political parties like the Patriotic Alliance in governance has helped formalise fringe ideas like the “abahambe” slogan, which was a chant directed at African foreigners, threatening and instructing them to leave. The threats have materialised, and foreigners are having different kinds of violence enacted on them.  

 

Afrophobia protects colonial borders

Many social commentors warned that the xenophobic utterances embedded in slogans such as “abahambe” coming from Patriotic Alliance leader, Minister Gayton McKenzie, are deeply rooted in anti-black hate. The TikTok accounts of creators such as: Nikita Lexi, Tara Roos, Samantha Jansen, Kaapie in Korea, Romantha Botha, and many others, have provided interesting and important context and caution with their historically rooted, evidence-based truth-telling that speaks to a plethora of contemporary South African issues, including race. Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture, McKenzie has now recently come under fire for posting old racist and sexist tweets, where the biggest frustration is over his repeated use of the “k-word”. The minister’s actions raise a lot of questions about the intersecting links between Afrophobia, tribalism, hate towards blackness and self-hate as a psychosocial condition plaguing many black people and people of colour, especially in South Africa. What we learn from the minister’s tweets is that Afrophobia is often used to mask racism. It is concerning for a government minister to hold such views, while they are responsible for providing services to the predominately black masses, and artists, in the case of McKenzie. 

What might be perhaps the most damaging and harmful to us as black South Africans, is that our Afrophobia disconnects us to valuable, self-affirming spiritual, social, historical, ecological and economic ties we have with the African continent. We protect the colonial borders that tore our families and cultural groups apart. Our hate is a worship of the colonial shackles that dismembered our ancestors, histories and experiences and that still stifle us today. 

News Archive

You touch a woman, you strike a rock
2004-11-02

Prof. Engela Pretorius van die Departement Sosiologie in die Fakulteit Geesteswetenskappe by die Universiteit van die Vrystaat het die kwessie omtrent feminisme aangespreek tydens haar intreerede met die onderwerp, You touch a woman, you strike a rock: Feminism(s) and emancipation in South Africa .

Prof. Pretorius het gesê: “Die geskiedenis van feminisme oor die algemeen kan in drie fases verdeel word, waarna verwys word as golwe. Eerste-golf-feminisme (19de eeu) het die fokus geplaas op die beskerming van vroueregte in die openbare terrein, spesifiek die reg om te stem, die reg tot onderrig en die reg om middelklas beroepe en professies te betreë.

Vroeë tweede-golf-feminisme word onthou vir hoe dit moederskap geteoretiseer het as synde ‘n onderdrukkende instelling. Slagspreuke van die 1970s was die persoonlike is polities en susterskap is magtig. Prof. Pretorius sê beide slagspreuke bevestig die idee dat vroue universeel onderdruk en uitgebuit word en slegs deur erkenning van dié situasie kan vroue die strukture wat hul onderdruk verander.

‘n Belangrike aspek van die derde golf van die feminisme-teorie is post-moderne feminisme wat diversiteit en verskille onderstreep. Die poging van hierdie feministe is afgestem op alle vorme van onderdrukking. Vroue van kleur het ook hul ontevredenheid uitgespreek gedurende die derde-golf-feminisme. Die feminisme van vroue van kleur word gekenmerk deur verskeie kwessies en talryke intellektuele standpuntinnames wat neerslaga vind in verskillende terme, soos Afrika feminisme of ‘womanism, sê prof. Pretorius.

Afrika-feminisme dui protes aan teen die wit/westerse geskiedenis en die wit/westerse dominansie binne feminisme. Afrika-vroue het besef dat hul onderdrukking verskillend is van dié van wit vroue en daarom is ‘n ander proses van bevryding nodig. Die Westerse feministiese praktyk om swart vroue by die bestaande feministiese ontologie te voeg, is nie voldoende nie omdat hul unieke ondervindings van slawerny, kolonialisme, onderdrukking deur mans en armoede nie uitgedruk word nie.

‘Womanism’ het tot stand gekom as gevolg van ‘n eksplisiete rassekritiek teen feminisme. Dit is ten gunste van die positiewe uitbeelding van swart mense. Dit word gekenmerk deur kulturele kontekstualisasie, die sentraliteit van die gesin en die belangrikheid daarvan om mans in te sluit.

Die geskiedenis van vroue in Suid-Afrika is verwant aan hul geskiedenis van onderdrukking as gevolg van patriargie. Vroue van verskillende rasse, kulture en klasse het patriargie op verskillende wyses in en variërende mate van erns ervaar. Onder voor-koloniale patriargie het vroue min sê gehad oor huwelikskeuses omdat mans dié besluite gedomineer het.

Die Nederlandse en Britse patriargale erfenis het neerslag gevind in die ideologie van die volksmoeder. Onderwyl dit veral manlike skrywers was wat die beeld van die vrou as versorger en tuisteskepper bevorder het, het vroue self ook hieraan ‘n aandeel gehad, sodat die volksmoeder volwaardig deel geword het van die Afrikaner nasionalistiese mitologie. Alhoewel middel- en werkersklas vroue met dié beeld geïdentifiseer het, het nie alle Afrikaanse vroue die ideologie aanvaar nie.

Onder die Victoriaanse erfenis was Britse vroue beperk to die private eerder as die openbare lewe. Die skeefgetrekte onderrigsisteem wat vroue in huishoudelike loopbane gekanaliseer het, die mag van mans oor hul vroue se eiendom en ‘n tekort aan toegang tot mag en geld het verseker dat vroue by die huis gebly het.

Wit Engelssprekende-vroue het die grootste geleentheid gehad om patriargie uit te daag vanweë hul toegang tot onderwys en die blootstelling aan liberale waardes, sê prof. Pretorius. Liberale vroue soos Helen Joseph en Helen Suzman het ‘n belangrike rol gespeel om in 1930 stemreg vir wit vroue in Suid-Afrika te verseker en het voortgegaan om ‘n rol te speel in die bevryding van swart vroue gedurende die vryheidstryd.

Die feminisme wat onder swart vroue ontwikkel het, was ‘n erkenning van die gemeenskaplike stryd met swart mans om die verwydering van die juk van eksterne onderdrukking en eksploitasie. Swart vroue in aktiewe en onafhanlike politiese rolle het tegelykertyd mans se aannames omtrent hul meerderwaardigheid asook die rassewette van die staat uitgedaag. Daarom kan ons sê dat die feminisme wat hier ontwikkel het, te voorskyn gekom het as gevolg van vroue se betrokkenheid by en toewyding tot nasionale bevryding, sê prof. Pretorius.

Institusionalisering is nie herlei tot magsvoordele nie, want gelykheid is nie in beleidsprogramme geïnkorporeer nie. Die hervestiging van sleutel aktiviste van die vrouebeweging in die regering het die stryd om genderbillikheid verander na ‘n projek wat deur die regering gelei word, sê prof. Pretorius. Ongelukkig word terreine van verandering buite die grense van die regering verwaarloos. Dit kan slegs aangespreek word deur ‘n aktiewe en feministiese stem in die burgerlike samelewing.

“Dit is my oortuiging dat formele instellings vir vroue binne die staat oor die lang termyn slegs effektief kan wees indien daar ‘n effektiewe feministiese vroue-beweging buite die staat in stand gehou word wat die grondslag waarop sosiale beleid gevorm word, kan uitdaag en bevraagteken. Daarom, A luta continua (die stryd duur voort),” sê prof. Pretorius.

Mediaverklaring
Uitgereik deur: Lacea Loader
Mediaverteenwoordiger
Tel: (051) 401-2584
Sel: 083 645 2454
E-pos: loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za
2 November 2004

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept