White South African Refugee Claims to Marginalisation: A Case of Re-Racialisation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article does a particularly job of spelling out how and why white South Africans are neither the victims of genocide or state-led, racially targeted violence; or economically disadvantaged in the post-Apartheid era. This is essential context for treating this case.

I think it would be helpful for the reader if the author would develop the meaning of re-racialization from the outset, and specify the actor(s) doing the re-racializing. If I’ve understood, South African affirmative action policies have been “re-racialized” to signify “reverse racism.” By white South Africans? By Donald Trump? By US refugee policy? All of the above? Perhaps it’s the process that needs to be worked through more clearly. How does re-racializing take place? The author points out that identifying white South Africans as “refugees” “re-racializes” them – changing the meaning of whiteness from privilege to persecution. Is this the primary meaning of re-racialization in the article? Is the US government “re-racializing” white South Africans, or are they re-racializing themselves?  Perhaps that is the central question I’m getting at.

As far as re-racialization vis-à-vis racial arbitrage, I wonder if racial arbitrage is actually the more powerful concept in the article, and if more might be made of the arbitrage idea. This idea, I believe, makes the white refugees the primary actors. “Whiteness” has less purchase in South Africa, and so they go use somewhere else, where it has greater value. This seems to clarify that the “refugees” themselves are the primary actors of interest in this formulation.  In any case, I think both concepts are useful, but there could be a bit more clarity around the actors and the processes.

Another big picture question is about the extent to which whiteness has been a valuable asset in humanitarian programs. On one hand, I think it’s undeniable that whiteness has had a privileged status in these spaces historically (as in the Ukrainian example). On the other hand, I don’t think the resettlement of white South Africans is “normal” in the context of international refugee protection. Perhaps acknowledging the specificity of the Afrikaaner case amidst the white nationalist takeover of the US government would be useful, while in no way denying that whiteness has always been a privileged status.  

On the other hand, p. 10 – line 444 begins, “The concept of refugee has historically been associated with persecuted non-white people fleeing life-threatening political violence,…”  This sort of conflicts with some other things noted in the paper about white privilege, and erases some important history of the refugee as a category. For example, many of the international institutions and conventions we use today have their origins in WWI and WWII and the management of mostly European refugees.  But, you could say that the US refugee resettlement program since the Cold War has primarily (though not exclusively) resettled non-white people.

On Malkki’s “speechless emissaries:” Malkki is showing us that the refugees are “speechless” only insofar as the international aid workers are concerned. Their words are not seen as credible. This might be useful to consider in relation to how that concept is referenced in the article.

By now, more than 49 South Africans have been resettled, I believe. This could be updated.

I think this piece has a lot of promise and is especially strong in its reference to literature and empirical data that refutes the idea that white South Africans are victims of state-sponsored violence and dispossession. The concepts of re-racialization and racial arbitrage seem appropriate and fruitful, but could be fleshed out a bit more.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research article addresses the construction of whiteness from an international perspective. It focuses on the case of 49 South Africans who identify as white, and who received refugee status in the United States of America. By analysing this case, the article examines (re)constructions of whiteness, focusing on ways in which whiteness is embedded in power, including transnational exercises of discursive power. Given the current climate of intense scholarly interest in the evolution of racialised identities in the US, the article is of central interest to critical scholars of race. This article is the first scholarly piece I have read on the topic of the 49 white-identifying South Africans who received refugee status in the US. As such, it is original and relevant. 

The tone and style of the article reflect a highly developed grasp of academic English. 

The research article is not premised on empirical data as defined in positivist science. That is to say, it is not based on data such as interviews, focus groups or surveys. Instead, the article offers a theoretical reading of a particular set of events. Given this methodology, I consider the conclusions to be consistent with the article's mode of inquiry.

I recommend publication. Minor issues require attention.

1) For example, peroids are sometimes placed on either side of an in-text reference. As a fictional example of what I mean see: It has been argumed by. (Hall, 2001). 

2) On page 3, the Natives Land Act is dated to 2013, an accident, of course, since the correct date is 1913. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. The relevant errors have been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf