South Africa has traded in a tightly—controlled repressive police state, with government favoritism of one racial group over all the others, for a violent crime—ridden democracy, with government favoritism of  one racial group (albeit a different one than before), over all the others. The title of biggest losers in the deal might surprise you. Aside from all the murder, rape, and robbery victims, it is an open question whether whites, who forfeited their political dominance, or the racially—mixed population ('the coloureds,' as they are known in South Africa) lost the most.

The Toronto Star carries a special report from Christine Cheng, writing from the Western Cape Province, where a majority of the population of four million falls into the coloured category. The dispatch studiously avoids any mention of the skyrocketing violence, which is the most basic fact of life for all South Africans. An estimated one out of four women there, for instance, have been raped. But the Western press is loathe to mention any downside to the end of white rule, however important it might be to the actual people who live in South Africa.

Nevertheless, the story about the lot of the coloureds (I beg the indulgence of racially—sensitive Americans, and use the indigenous terminology without scare quotes), has some interesting lessons about race relations. The Western Cape actually voted against Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) party in the 1994 elections, with a comfortable majority for De Klerk's white—dominated National Party (NP). In 1999, the ANC won control of the Western Cape, but the successor to the NP, the NNP, continues to draw heavy support from coloured voters.

Although coloured citizens were not treated as well as whites under apartheid, they had more privileges than blacks, and were much more prosperous, as well. Having lost their comparative racial status advantage over the majority blacks, many in racially—mixed category feel a sense of loss. Cheng writes:

In a country where skin colour remains deeply politicized, being coloured is akin to being in racial limbo. Many complain they were not white enough under apartheid and now are not black enough in the new South Africa.

Some, of course, try to throw their lot in with the newly dominant racial group, a kind of mirror—imaging of their former comparative status advantage:

...some coloured people deny any distinction between the two groups, preferring to refer to themselves as "non—whites." Some claim using the "non—white" label is merely a tactic to take advantage of South Africa's new affirmative—action policies that favour blacks. But no matter how the label is perceived, it is clear that the coloured community is frustrated with the way things are going in the new South Africa.

Others in the community approach matters differently.

Richard van der Ross, former vice—chancellor at the University of the Western Cape, publicly expressed the disillusionment felt by the coloured community in a recent editorial in the Sunday Times newspaper.

"There is widespread agreement that Africans had a raw deal (during apartheid) and that we were in some cases favoured above Africans," he wrote. "But there is also widespread resentment that Africans are in so many cases given unfair advantage over our sons and daughters."

The affirmative—action policies that have been put in place by the ANC are extremely unpopular within the coloured community. With the exception of the educated elite, there is widespread agreement among whites and coloureds that affirmative action is just another form of racism.

America's history as a nation may contain in its first half the crime of slavery. But that history is far more distant, and probably less invidious than the apartheid which South practiced until recently. Yet the United States, too, has embarked on a course of racial preferences, via affirmative action.

As in South Africa, the group which may contain the seeds of rebellion against state—sanctioned racial discrimination may well be those who do not fit into one category or another. Unlike in South Africa, there is no widely—accepted label for them. 'Colored' certainly will not do, and 'mixed race' contains overtones which many find unpleasantly reminiscent of America's sorry history of some states' anti—miscegenation laws. No matter what the name might be, such people are evidence that the human heart os far to big to accept rigid racial categories as anything more than a hindrance to happiness.

State—sponsored racial preferences are always wrong, no matter whom the beneficiaries might be.

Posted by Thomas  01 06 04