Social Justice and Transformative Learning

Culture and Identity in the United States and South Africa

Saundra M. Tomlinson-Clarke, Darren L. Clarke, Saundra M. Tomlinson-Clarke, Darren L. Clarke

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317577904
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Education
• Categoría: Comparative Education

The similarities between the United States and South Africa with respect to race, power, oppression and economic inequities are striking, and a better understanding of these parallels can provide educational gains for students and educators in both countries. Through shared experiences and perspectives, this volume presents scholarly work from U.S. and South African scholars that advance educational practice in support of social justice and transformative learning. It provides a comprehensive framework for developing transformational learning experiences that facilitates leadership for social justice, and a deeper understanding of the factors influencing personal, national and global identity.

1
Introduction

Social Justice and Global Diversity in the United States and South Africa

Saundra M. Tomlinson-Clarke

The geographic and demographic landscape of the world is rapidly changing as societies are becoming more technologically advanced. Globalization has reduced the distance between spaces and increased interdependence and interconnectedness among diverse people throughout the world. A sense of connectedness has increased awareness and knowledge of the economic, environmental, and technological concerns affecting local and international communities (Gerstein, Heppner, Ægisdóttir, Leung, & Norsworthy, 2009). Although global diversity is often viewed as a means for fostering positive interactions within and between societies, the process of creating an interconnected world also has been wrought with global challenges. Information can be delivered instantaneously through cyberspace; however, historical and situational contexts that create meaningful and relevant knowledge may be missing. As a result, knowledge may be limited and is unlikely to be transformative. However, when sufficient and understood within a socio-cultural/historical context, knowledge may serve as a social catalyst that transforms societies toward economic and social equities.

The parallels between the United States and South Africa with respect to race, power, oppression, and economic inequities are striking. Both countries have demonstrated social transformation despite racialized histories that impacted every aspect of daily living (i.e., education, employment, health, housing), influencing the development of identity. From a U.S. historical context, the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned Plessy v. Ferguson’s (1896) separate but equal doctrine. Following slavery and the American Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) addressed citizenship rights and equal protection of laws. Social movements in South Africa that became a protest of solidarity against the apartheid government demonstrated the power of global unity in support of racial and social justices (Brown & Yaffe, 2013). Attributed to the legacy of Nelson Mandela, forgiveness and reconciliation became an impetus associated with South Africa’s transformation to a democratic society.

Well documented in the U.S. and South African histories are protests, struggles, and engagement with intent to advance racial equality and human rights. Guided by transformative knowledge, and fueled by intolerance for injustice, with goals for a more just society, social movements have had the ability to traverse cultural, economic, and political boundaries, resulting in social change (Ramsamy, 2016; Wettergren, 2010). Societal change in support of human rights often serves as a measure of social justice within a society and in the world (Jones, 2006). U.S. and South African historical and socio-political considerations provide the contextual lens for exploring the complexities of race, culture, and education in society. In creating opportunities for transformative learning, psychological and physical impediments that have restricted equal access must be examined.

In creating a broader understanding of cultural issues and social justice, we are proposing an international, interdisciplinary approach that allows for the examination of cultural, social, historical, physical, and political dimensions that affect meaning, perceptions, and advocacy toward social justice. Using an interdisciplinary approach also reduces the fragmentation of concepts, events, and ideas, allowing for a deeper understanding of cultural realities and lived experiences. Without a broader and in-depth examination of the factors influencing identity, the interface of individual and systemic barriers that continue to support inequality and social inequities may not be fully explored or understood. By including factors that serve to shape identity, the various system levels provide for a comprehensive and fluid framework for investigating culture and cultural issues impacting societies. It is with the goals of creating a foundation for exploring social justice leadership and social change that the chapters of this volume were conceptualized.

Our intent is to promote social justice conversations that move beyond rhetoric and encourage social justice leadership that transforms education and society. We propose transformative learning as a social justice paradigm in developing sustained learning in a global world. Through our narratives and reflections, we hope to encourage difficult dialogues as part of lifelong learning that supports social justice leadership and advocacy.

References

Brown, G., & Yaffe, H. (2013). Non-stop against apartheid: Practicing solidarity outside the South African embassy. Social Movements Studies, 12, 227–234.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Gerstein, L. H., Heppner, P. P., Ægisdóttir, S., Leung, S. A., & Norsworthy, K. L. (2009). Cross-cultural counseling: History, challenges, and rationale. In L. H. Gerstein, P. P. Heppner, S. Ægisdóttir, S. A. Leung, & K. L. Norsworthy (Eds.), International handbook of cross-cultural counseling: Cultural assumptions and practices worldwide (pp. 3–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, J. M. (2006). From racial inequality to social justice: The legacy of Brown v. Board and lessons from South Africa. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 885–909.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

Ramsamy, E. (2016). The international community and transformation in South Africa: From protest to engagement. In S. M. Tomlinson-Clarke & D. L. Clarke (Eds.), Social justice and transformative learning: Culture and identity in the United States and South Africa (pp. 4–23). New York, NY: Routledge.

Wettergren, Å. (2010). The significance of social movements to human rights and global solidarity. Social Movement Studies, 9, 341–345.

2
The International Community and Transformation in South Africa

From Protest to Engagement

Edward Ramsamy

The international campaign against racial segregation in South Africa was one of the most successful global solidarity movements of the 20th century. Rather than a singular movement, it was a loose, cross-national network of student activists, scholars, sportspersons, politicians, labor union leaders, religious figures, artists, musicians, and others that offered assistance to anti-apartheid resistance movements inside South Africa. The movement can be divided into two broad campaigns: 1) Efforts by national governments to provide diplomatic, military, and other logistical support to the liberation movements; 2) civil society efforts to support the resistance. For example, in 1946, the newly independent Indian state was the first to act officially against segregation by withdrawing its high commissioner from South Africa and unilaterally imposing sanctions against South Africa that same year. The Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries, as well as Cuba, provided military assistance to the African National Congress (ANC). The African countries of Angola, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia provided military bases for the ANC. South Africa’s military defeat at the hands of Cuba in Cuito Cuanavale (Angola) in 1987–88 shook the confidence of the South African military. This humiliation was one of the reasons that South Africa withdrew from its occupation of Namibia and ventured toward a negotiated settlement with the liberation movements. The Scandinavian governments provided substantial financial assistance to the ANC.

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the international campaign against apartheid, paying particular attention to the role of the United Nations in providing a transnational space for anti-apartheid activism. The chapter will highlight the role of the international civil servant/activist Dr. Enuga Reddy, one particular “switchman” within the global anti-apartheid struggle. Dr. Reddy’s coordination and vision as the prime mover within the Special Committee Against Apartheid of the United Nations created new political opportunities for anti-apartheid activists and enabled them to take advantage of contingent circumstances such that they could shift international opinion and the South African domestic political terrain against apartheid. Reddy worked against apartheid on the one hand by mobilizing within the UN to denounce South Africa and to increase the institution’s capacity to make firm resolutions against apartheid. On the other hand, he simultaneously maneuvered behind the scenes as a high-ranking official to carve out a vital transnational space for global anti-apartheid activists that would allow them to network and plan their next moves. The chapter will show how Reddy’s efforts, over a 35-year career as a United Nations civil servant, had cascading consequences from the 1960s onwards that led to the eventual demise of apartheid.

The International Anti-Apartheid Movement

The heroic and courageous struggles waged by South Africans against the country’s notorious policies of White domination and racial segregation were complemented by an international solidarity campaign to support internal protest movements within the country. These international solidarity movements can be traced to the late 1800s. The Indian National Congress (the movement fighting against British imperialism in India) protested against the discrimination faced by Indian indentured laborers and merchants in South Africa during the late 1890s. Henry Sylvester Williams, a Trinidadian-born lawyer, writer, and pioneer of the Pan African movement, travelled to South Africa in the early 1900s. Williams was instrumental in forming the African Association in June 1897. The organization later changed its name to the Pan African Association. Sylvester was one of the early advocates for the rights of colonized peoples and a key player in the burgeoning Pan African Movement during the early 1900s (Lemelle & Kelly, 1994; Magubane, 1987; SADET, 2008; Skinner, 2010).

Given the shared histories of South Africa and the United States, there have been strong connections between the struggle against racism and White supremacy in both these countries. W. E. B. Du Bois attended the early Pan African Congresses sponsored by Henry Sylvester Williams and was a pioneer in linking the domestic struggle against racism in the United States with broader global struggles against colonialism, fascism, and racism (Cell, 1982; Cock & Bernstein, 2002; Fredrickson, 1995). Similarly, Paul Robeson played a particularly pioneering role in the international struggle to fight racial segregation and White supremacy in South Africa. During his sojourn in London in the 1930s, he became increasingly interested in the culture and politics of Africa. He studied a number of African languages in London. The negative political and economic impacts of colonialism on African development troubled him. He interacted with a number of Africans in London, including Kwame Nkrumah and Jomo Kenyatta, important figures in the burgeoning African nationalist movements who became the future leaders of Ghana and Kenya, respectively (Duberman, 1989; Stewart, 1998).

In 1937, Paul Robeson was instrumental in founding the Council on African Affairs (COAA). The specific aims of the COAA were (cited from Foner, 1978, p. 10):

• 1) To give concrete help to the struggle of the African masses
• 2) To disseminate accurate information concerning Africa and its people; in that, to wake up Americans to what was happening in Africa, the one continent where undisguised colonial slavery was still practiced
• 3) To influence the adoption of governmental policies designed to promote their advancement and freedom and preserve international peace
• 4) To smash the iron curtain of secrecy and double-talk surrounding the schemes for intensified imperialist exploitation of Africa and its people
• 5) To prevent American loans and guns from being used to crush the freedom struggle of Africans and other subjected peoples
• 6) To strengthen the alliance of progressive Americans, Black and White, with the peoples of Africa and other lands in the common struggle for world peace and freedom.

Paul Robeson had hoped that with the conclusion of World War II, the United States and Europe would support the quest for self-determination of African nations under colonial rule. In his capacity as Chairman of the COAA, Robeson published an article in the New York Times (June 1946) entitled “An Appeal for African Freedom,” where he wrote (cited from Foner, 1978, p. 164):

One hundred fifty million Africans and 93 percent of the continent of Africa are still in colonial subjection.… The colonial peoples of Africa are barred from the United Nations. They ask not for promises of a remote freedom, but for ACTION NOW to end their enslavement and oppression. Will the Union of South Africa’s legalized fascist-like practice of racial oppression be outlawed, and that state’s mandate control be revoked?

Through the activities and programs of the COAA, Robeson called on the international community to act immediately to support African struggles for freedom and self-determination. The newly constituted United Nations soon emerged as a key space of struggle against White supremacy and apartheid in South Africa.

South Africa and the United Nations

South Africa’s notorious policies of racial segregation and discrimination were a concern of the UN since its inception. In 1946, Drs. Yusuf Dadoo and G.M Naicker of the Transvaal (TIC) and Natal Indian Congresses (NIC), respectively, launched a “passive resistance” campaign against the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act. Ironically, it was the government of General Jan Smuts, one of the authors of the Preamble to the United Nations Charter, that had introduced the act in the South African legislature. As a prelude to the Group Areas Act, which was one of the main pillars of apartheid, this anti-Indian act denied Indians the right to reside or trade in certain urban areas that were designated exclusively for White occupancy. The Gandhi-inspired passive resistance began on June 13, 1946 in Durban, South Africa as some 15,000 people took to the street in protest of the Jan Smuts Act. More than 2,000 people were arrested for civil disobedience as part of this campaign (Fredrickson, 1995; Maharaj, 1997).

In an effort to support the campaign in South Africa, India launched a complaint before the United Nations General Assembly on June 22, 1946, claiming that Smuts’s legislation against South Africa’s Indian population violated the UN’s charter (United Nations, 1968, p. 45). The TIC and NIC requested that Dr. Alfred Bitini Xuma, President of the ANC, lead a multi-racial delegation to the UN Headquarters in New York City to lobby the General Assembly. The Council on African Affairs, then chaired by Paul Robeson, hosted a reception for the South African delegation and organized a demonstration in front of the South African Consulate to protest Smuts’s racist policies. The Smuts government contended that the “Indian Question” in South Africa was a domestic issue and that the United Nations did not have the authority to debate the internal policies of a member state. However, the General Assembly rejected South Africa’s argument and adopted Resolution 44(I) on December 8, 1946 (with a 32 to 15 vote, 7 abstentions), which stated that “the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa should be in conformity with the international obligations under the agreements concluded between the two governments, and the relevant provisions of the [UN] Charter” (see General Assembly Resolution, 1 Session, Resolutions, A/64/ADD.1 in United Nations, 1968, p. 10). A few days later, on December 14, 1946, the General Assembly refused to approve South Africa’s request to annex the territory of South West Africa (later Namibia) into the Union of South Africa. Sir Maharaj Singh, the Indian Agent-General in South Africa, spearheaded the effort to oppose the Smuts government’s annexation plans by pointing out the racism inherent in South Africa’s request and asking the United Nations community to ponder whether the people of South West Africa would desire to be part of an oppressive and unjust regime. Paul Robeson’s Council on African Affairs similarly lobbied against South Africa’s proposal by publishing a pamphlet opposing the annexation and mailing it to all the General Assembly delegates. As a consequence, the General Assembly voted to preserve South West Africa’s territorial integrity by placing it under a United Nations trusteeship (United Nations, 1968). Such actions by the UN amounted to a snub of Jan Smuts, the premier of South Africa, who had played a prominent role in the founding of both the League of Nations and the United Nations. Smuts, who had been involved in drafting the UN Charter in San Francisco a year earlier, was now shown to be a hypocrite whose own government’s policies were grossly out of step with the charte...