Colonisation and the Genesis and Perpetuation of Anti-Blackness Violence in South Africa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The overall merit of this paper is its explicit focus on applying the antiblackness theory to South Africa's persistent racialism, despite its almost 30years of decolonization and its particularly cruel and complex articulation in political, economic, social, mental and psychological Apartheid. It is really worth retracing the antiblackness idea in this particular example of racialisation of an entire populace, society, economy and polity up to this very day of complex political and socio-economic alliances.
The author describes this process very eloquently, thus unfortunately sometimes venturing into too an opaque language (e.g. line 24-30.
The main concern with this approach is the lack of referencing for often bold claims eg line 47-48 ...liberals are reluctant to engage ...; line 131-132 the complicity of new Black elites with white bourgeoise capitalist (sic)...
Other important paragraphs may sound, despite their accuracy, like personal opinions or impressions rather than already analysed and framed phenomena due to lack of solid, systematic referencing e.g. line 210-221 on 'swart gevaar'; line 269-281on exploitation of black bodies; The whole of paragraph 3 (line 284-377), a critical one, suffers severly from a lack of referencing, even though the author claims in line 291 that Afrikaner nationalism has generated such intense examination. In short, while the line of reasoning and the logical progression is very tempting, the want of references makes the article thus unnecessarily prone to criticism. The author has had access to relevant sources to make his/her argument and remind us of the continuous thread of antiblackness throughout SA's history, present, and most likely immediate future; these sources need to be referenced to buttress an otherwise well-worked out paper (with the exception of some grammar and spelling shortcomings (see below)).
The language is in general very rich, sometimes risking to lose the reader along the way. A review with the intent of simplification of sentence complexity and vocabulary is advisable.
A final spelling-cum-grammar check by a human and not digital brain is also needed. E.g, used instead of use in line 23; consistincy in spelling of anti(-)B/blackness; line 149 the the; Afrikaner instead of Afrikaaner...
Some sentences are incomplete and/or do not make much sense: e.g. line 121-123; educational outcomes,,,deficient health systems and crumbling infrastructure line 208-209
Author Response
Dear Colleague
Thank you for reading this article and for your useful feedback. Your observation that many knowledge claims were not supported by literature/theory is well received. I have since attended to this, all highlighted in the second draft submission.
Reviewer 2 Report
Colonization and the genesis and perpetuation of anti-Blackness violence in South Africa
Author: NN
The article conveys NN’s reflections on the continuity of anti-Blackness into the contemporary South African society. By looking at the historical political landscape, including an overview and trajectory of legal measures controlling and dominating non-white South Africans daily lives, NN seeks to capture the intense negativity that endures well into the post-Apartheid, post-colonial period. NN writes with a good level of precision and organization that is too be appreciated. In general, the article is recommendable for publication with some minor issues to be addressed.
First of all, the essay is very descriptive in its broad historical ambition, which is helpful for the not-so-initiated reader, however, in terms of a clear argument borne from NN’s own research material, there is little help to be found. One can also see the strengths of the essay as its efforts to zoom in on core dilemmas of anti-Blackness and colonialism. The use of Fanon’s zone of being and non-being is well-taken, yet it also reveals the very abstract as well as well-trodden path to deal with racism and humanness that is admittedly always indispensable and endlessly important and must be said and written, but it does not help us much forward from the status quo of the literature.
In fact, the essay leaves us with a dilemma. First, we may ask “what is the problem” NN wish to address? The answer is, or seems to be, the presence among black elites that black is still the anti-thesis of white ways of thinking and governing in post-Apartheid SA. A contemporary focus that is. But then turning to history 350 years ago may be a distractive way for approaching the contemporary problem, since origin does not explain continuity? It seems that the essay, instead, should focus more clearly on its desire to provide a historical view of the past and onto the contemporary to provide a background for discussing the contemporary issues.
The essay could be improved by clearer outlining what is perpetuated and what is not. Is it the same “anti-Blackness” sentiment, ideology, and violence throughout 350 years? What is different? Surely, NN’s essay could not have been published and discussed say 30, 40 or 50 years ago, right? This bear witness to some discontinuity, after all.
The origin and perpetuation of anti-Blackness is described properly in the essay. However, I am surprised to see this “as if” anti-Blackness simply “reproduces” itself. It seems that some theory beyond anti-Blackness literature needs to be included, as a minimum acknowledged, how power and hegemony are renewed and reproduced.
The use of literature on colonialism and decolonization is somewhat narrow, and surprisingly does not for instance, include Suren Pillay’s argument that South African colonialism is more that of ‘enforced difference’ whereas Grosfoguel and his cohort deal with ‘forced assimilation’, and then use this is a universal model. Pillay should be included and not just as a simple reference.
NN refers to the issue of positionality and NN’s background. Yet, this is noted early, but it is not applied. From years of intense scholarly analysis during the post-modernist decade, it was found that authors would write about their position to create some credibility and then magically disappeared in the rest of the article or monograph. We cannot ignore them. Instead, we can only co-reflect its relevance and impact as we go along. How does NN co-reflect positionality in the production of scientific analysis? What are the strengths and weaknesses of NN’s position? An outsider, perhaps excluded from the anti-Blackness? Is there no such thing as Indian suffering, and by extension “shared suffering”, which is the essence of W.E.B. du Bois’ definition of race?
NN writes that nationalism acts in the interest of the nation-state. This is at odds with nationalism-research, which instead says nationalism (as a tool of an elite) will use and take ownership of the state for its purposes. P. 6-7
Author Response
Dear Colleague
Thank you for reading the first draft and offering suggestions for its improvement. The various unsupported knowledge claims have now been supported by the inclusion of relevant literature/theory. This has been highlighted in the revised submission.
Thank you for pointing to the scholarship of Suren Pillay. His distinction between assimilation and enforced difference is instructive as it helps strengthen the argument that this paper wishes to lead. I have included an explanation to that effect in the paper.
Your comment on the issue of continuities and discontinuities of the anti-Blackness project, is well taken. I have addressed this issue in the revised submission.
On the issue of positionality, I take the point that it does appear as if the author has disappeared after initially declaring this. I have now included a paragraph that speaks to this. My contention though is that the analysis, interpretation and choices I make in this paper are a direct outcome of my positionality. I have offered a comment on the phenomenon of 'shared suffering' and point to recently published work that deals with this.
Reviewer 3 Report
This article is very good, informative, and brave. The author uncovers, without sugar-coating or embellishment, the scandalous treatment of Indigenous Peoples of South Africa by the British and especially Dutch settlers. The Afrikaners continue to benefit from their colonizations in Africa and in the Americas, with human and material resources extracted from lands not their own.
Some grammatical issues that your copy editor will find.
Author Response
Dear Colleague
Thank you for your supportive comments
