Leon Lemmer: Jonathan Jansen se marxistiese mentaliteit – praag.co.za
Ek wil Jansen se jongste boek, Making love in a war zone (Johannesburg; Bookstorm, 2017, 224p, R300; Amazon Kindle $21,65), waarin hy rasvermenging/verbastering/hibriditeit bepleit, bespreek. Soos dikwels die geval is, hou hy homself as toonbeeld voor. Ek ag dit egter nodig om eers te skryf oor Jansen se boek wat as aanloop hiertoe gedien het, Knowledge in the blood: Confronting race and the apartheid past (Lansdowne: UCT Press, 2009, 337p). Voorheen het ek ‘n ander boek van Jansen, As by fire: The end of the South African university (Cape Town: Tafelberg, 2017, 287p, R280; Amazon Kindle $23,34), bespreek (Praag 15 en 22.07.2017). Ek skryf hierdie en die volgende rubriek oor Jansen op die gevaar af dat dit die indruk kan wek dat Jansen meer aandag ontvang as wat hy verdien. Naas sy anti-Afrikaner- en anti-Afrikaansgesindheid is daar egter sy (kulturele) marxisme waarteen ernstig gewaarsku moet word. Jansen se marxisme is eerder van ‘n sosiale as ekonomiese aard sodat sy eie welgesteldheid hom geensins pla nie.
Jonathan David Jansen (gebore in 1956) het die graad BSc aan die Universiteit van Wes-Kaapland behaal, waarskynlik danksy ‘n studiebeurs van die Departement van Kleurlingsake. Daarna was hy ‘n biologie-onderwyser in Vredenburg en Distrik Ses. Dit was destyds vir dese en gene maklik om ‘n Amerikaanse studiebeurs te bekom, mits jy nie-wit is. Jansen is in 1985 na Amerika. Aan Cornell University het hy die graad MSc behaal en daarna die graad PhD aan Stanford University. Albei hierdie universiteite is bekend/berug vir hulle fanatieke pro-swart gesindheid. Die titel van Jansen se doktorale proefskrif is: “The state and curriculum in transition societies, Zimbabwe 1980-1990” (1991, 265p). Daar is geen grondverskuiwende insigte in hierdie tesis wat daarop kan dui dat ‘n internasionaal gerekende opvoedkundige op die punt was om sy toetrede tot die akademie te maak nie.
Jansen het ses jaar lank in Amerika vertoef en het onder meer tyd gehad om aan anti-apartheidsbedrywighede deel te neem (p 1 – alle bladsyverwysings is na sy 2009-boek). In 1991 het hy na Suid-Afrika teruggekeer en aanvanklik nie-akademiese werk in Johannesburg gedoen (2). Die jare negentig was egter die tyd toe die spook van transformasie (wesenlik verswarting en verengelsing wat betref studente en dosente/personeel) aan die plaaslike universiteite begin loop het. Jansen is in 1994 as departementshoof en daarna dekaan van opvoedkunde aan die Durban-Westville University aangestel sonder dat hy, soos tradisioneel vereis word, deeglike (eintlik enige) ondervinding van akademiese doseerwerk gehad het.
As deel van Johan van Zyl (rektor 1991-2001) se oordrewe en akademies hoogs skadelike transformasieplan aan die Universiteit Pretoria (UP), is Jansen in 2000 as dekaan van die fakulteit opvoedkunde aangestel. Jansen beweer dat hy uitgenooi is om aansoek om die pos te doen (4). Van Zyl het in 2001 die uitvoerende hoof van Sanlam geword en ook daar groot ontwrigting en smart by blankes weens sy oordrewe transformasiebeleid veroorsaak. Jansen het in Pretoria aangebly en tot 2007 daar alles in sy vermoë gedoen om van UP ‘n nie-Afrikaner- en ‘n nie-Afrikaanse universiteit te maak. Hy verwys na “the decency of revolt” (1) en “the centrality of education in the resistance project” (2). Jansen is dermate met linkse ideologie besoedel dat geen objektief-wetenskaplike benadering van akademiese werk van hom verwag kan word nie. In Durban “I started to teach and engage black [Indian] university students about the meaning of struggle and the trajectory of change … guided by the pain … of students” (2).
Jansen se 2009-boek is sy “account of change at the University of Pretoria” (xi). Die hooftitel is ontleen aan ‘n gedig van Macdara Woods (v). “Knowledge in the blood for me means knowledge embedded in the emotional, psychic, spiritual, social, economic, political, and psychological lives of a community” (171). Jansen se definisie kon baie korter gewees het. Die kennis wat Afrikaners in hulle bloed omdra, dus wat Afrikaners wesenlik tradisioneel/histories is, is vir Jansen absoluut verwerplik terwyl die kennis wat swartes in hulle bloed omdra die soort kennis is waarna Afrikaners moet streef as hulle hulle wil reinig van die smet van apartheid. Hy is vervul met wanhoop oor Afrikaners want “knowledge in the blood is not easily changed” (171). “Political and cultural identities are not like an overcoat that can be slipped off as easily as weather changes” (250). Jansen vertel met smaak hoe die rektor glad nie belang gestel het in die kandidatuur van die drie Afrikaners wat op die kortlys vir die dekaanskap was nie. Van Zyl het nie eens hulle onderhoude bygewoon nie (5). Hy wou (ten alle koste) ‘n swarte (eintlik bruine) as dekaan aanstel. Jansen bestempel Van Zyl as “charismatic”, “smart” en ‘n “political entrepreneur” (4). “Van Zyl … left an indelible mark on the institution [UP]” (5), maar nie in die sin van verbeterde akademies-wetenskaplike gehalte nie.
In 2009 is Jansen as rektor aan die Universiteit Vrystaat (UV) aangestel. Weens transformasie was dit weer nie vir hom nodig om teen blanke kandidate mee te ding nie. Die voorsitter van die UV-raad, Faan Hancke, het maande voor Jansen se aanstelling telkens die versekering gegee dat ‘n blanke nie as rektor aangestel sou word nie. Teen die feite in en kenmerkend Jansenisties skryf hy: “I had decidedly not thought of myself as an affirmative action candidate” (153). In die middel van 2008 het Jansen die manuskrip van hierdie boek aan Stanford University voltooi. Dit is my oortuiging dat geen rasionele akademikus Jansen vir die pos van rektor sou oorweeg het as die inhoud van hierdie boek voor sy aanstelling bekend was en afdoende verstaan is nie.
Teen die einde van verlede jaar is Jansen as ‘n dosent en navorser in opvoedkunde aan die Universiteit Stellenbosch (US) aangestel. Toe het die rektor, Wim de Villiers, Jansen op die US-webwerf (20.10.2017) as “one of the leading pedagogues of our time” geloof, al is dit bekend dat die US deesdae by voorkeur nie-wit dosente aanstel. In ‘n nota voor in die boek word gesê Jansen “does not acknowledge apartheid-era classifications of people by colour” (vi). Dit stel hom in staat om homself nie as bruin nie maar as swart te herklassifiseer. Die feit is dat hy ingevolge apartheid se rasklassifikasies met die toekenning van studiebeurse en aanstelling in poste bevoordeel is. Jansen behoort goed in te pas by die ontaardings- en ontwortelingsproses waarmee De Villiers besig is. Saam sal hulle kan sorg dat die laaste reste van ‘n Afrikaner- en Afrikaanse US vernietig word. Jansen noem ‘n vorige US-rektor, Chris Brink, wat soos Jansen sterk anti-Afrikaner- en anti-Afrikaansgesind is, “openminded and accommodating” (121). Brink se opvolger, Russel Botman, het dieselfde gesindheid geopenbaar. Jansen sal nie beswaar hê teen die US-koshuis wat na Botman vernoem is nie. Hy het wel beswaar teen ‘n koshuis met die naam Huis Voortrekker (126).
Wat in Jansen se boek staan, is verregaande. Die eerste sin van die “Acknowledgments” lui: “I dedicate this book to my white Afrikaner undergraduate students” (ix). Daar is dus geen twyfel dat Afrikaners in Jansen se visier is nie. Die eerste sin van die “Prologue” lui: “It will never happen again” (1). Wat dikwels oor Naziïsme gesê word, word hier hoogs onoorspronklik op apartheid van toepassing gemaak. Volgens Jansen se insig is die “two great events of the 20th century, the Holocaust and Apartheid” (52). Die hele proloog is eintlik ‘n loflied vir homself. Soos Jansen se gewoonte is, word talle (onverifieerbare) staaltjies dwarsdeur die boek vertel wat fiktief aandoen of ingeklee word soos dit hom pas. Wat hierdie anekdotes gemeen het, is dat Jansen dink dat hy deurgaans die held is. Wat interessant sou wees, is as ‘n mens kon weet hoeveel keer hy homself in hierdie boek beskryf as die “black dean” en die persoon wat as leier en uit ‘n gesagsposisie funksioneer; “one who exemplified the taking over of white space and white authority” (234). Hy is heeltemal oorbehep met sy velkleur, die pos wat hy beklee, die gesag wat hy oor blankes uitoefen en die briljante leiding wat van hom uitgaan. In die UV-rektorstoel het hierdie dinge waarskynlik toksiese afmetings aangeneem.
Jansen het nie die akademiese verfyndheid om duidelik tussen kennis (in mense se koppe) en inligting (buite mense se koppe) te onderskei nie. Sy kennis van kennisleer/epistemologie is ongetwyfeld gebrekkig. Inligting word dikwels sonder meer kennis genoem. Aan UP was Jansen se rasgebaseerde klagte: “Knowledge is racially distributed and racially owned, for the important decision makers at the head of the organization are still white … I believe the most important impediment to the racial transformation of academic staff appointments at universities such as Pretoria is that the control over knowledge of processes, resources, and space is still largely in white hands. Knowledge is control” (156). Sedert 1994 beskik die ANC-regering egter oor, of het toegang tot, al die nodige kennis/inligting maar pleks van ‘n redelike mate van beheer oor landsake uit te oefen, is daar veeleerder chaos. Waarnatoe wend Jansen hom vir ‘n oplossing van hierdie probleem? Na marxistiese kritiese teorie. “Critical theory has yet to come to terms with this problem of knowledge and control within universities and how they operate to maintain ideological power and racial privilege at historical white institutions” (157). Is swart mag en swart bevoordeling aan swart universiteite/instansies nie ook problematies nie?
Later verwys Jansen na sy en sy “progressive friends” se (onkritiese) aanhang van kritiese teorie (255). In Amerika “I was raised as a graduate student on critical theory” (256). Hiermee erken Jansen die marxistiese kern van sy pedagogie. Hy het (soos Russel Botman) lof vir bv Paulo Freire (1921-1997). Hy verwys goedkeurend na diegene wat ten gunste van feminisme en anti-koloniale retoriek is en rasteoretici wat die werklikheid van ras probeer ontken. Wat hierdie elemente en Jansen gemeen het, is dat hulle “activist educators” is (256); dus dat hulle hulle ideologiese voorkeure aan studente opdring pleks van hulle daadwerklik op te voed.
“For someone coming out of the oppressive regime of Apartheid education, critical theory was almost an inevitable attraction to help understand and change not just racist pedagogy in South Africa but the entire oppressive system within which it anchored its logic. Critical theory … offers a lens for understanding the role of schools in perpetuating and subverting the race, class, and gender interests of state and society … Critical theory receives and constructs the world as divided between black and white, working and privileged classes, citizens and illegal immigrants, men and women, straight and queer, oppressors and oppressed; its dialogical pretenses notwithstanding, the world is taken as torn among rival groups. Critical theory then takes sides, once this divided world is constructed in terms of these polarities. The goal of a critical education is liberation, to free the oppressed (those on the underside of history) from the shackles of their oppression, and to take on evil systems and resist the agents of exploitation … The evangel of critical theory therefore enables us to see the world from the perspective of those denied human rights or economic access or racial justice … it remains a pedagogy of the oppressed” (256-257).
Waarmee die marxistiese Jansen hom besig hou, is “postconflict pedagogy” (259); dus “the [white] bodies in the classroom, who carry knowledge within themselves … must be engaged, interrupted, and transformed” (258). “A postconflict pedagogy demands that the received knowledge of white students be engaged and interrupted. They, too, are victims of Apartheid, and their heroic stories of conquest and narratives of uniqueness must be disrupted in ways that achieve liberation for white students” (265). “A postconflict pedagogy is founded on hope” (270). Hier vind Jansen as aktivistiese dosent aansluiting by kameraad Russel Botman. “Hope requires recognition of racism and the privilege it bestows; hope demands that the consequences of white history and power be redressed” (271). “I distinguish stories that remind black children about their shared heritage of a colonial past or a slave history (which is crucial [!]) from stories that conclude with a terminal ending of despair and distress. What destoys hope is that the story of the bondage of slavery is not always accompanied by a story of the bravery of the enslaved” (272).
Jansen het dit teen die sogenaamde beangste kennis van Afrikaners wat hy as wesenlik beangste mense uitbeeld. “What I saw was a fearful people, anxious about personal futures and institutional fate; concerned about jobs and security; nervous about ‘transformation’ and what it might portend; and aware of the fragility of language, custom, and culture. Everywhere around me, I witnessed a community struggling to come to terms with loss and change” (7). “The system of Apartheid depended on the few Afrikaner universities, including Pretoria, to generate the fraught knowledge and the loyal expertise that would sustain the system of racial separateness and racial dominance in every sphere of society” (3). In alles wat eie aan UP was, lees Jansen die soort politiek wat hy afkeur, bv die ossewa op die universiteit se wapen (3, 216). Hy wil klaarblyklik nie die touleier wees nie. In sy eie oë is hy ‘n wonderlike anderste soort leier.
“I was excited about working in a completely new terrain, attacted as I always am by challenges that render me a stranger and intruder into a new culture” (4). Wat was verkeerd met UP? “All the professors were white, all the heads of department were male, and all the white administrative staff were Afrikaners” (5). Waarom mag ‘n akademies voortreflike universiteit, wat oor baie dekades deur Afrikaners opgebou is, nie as sodanig voortbestaan nie? Nee, Jansen is eerder daarop ingestel om die ANC-regering se inmenging in universiteitsake te bevorder en geen waarde aan akademiese vryheid en universitêre outonomie te heg nie. Jansen sien homself as “a leader bent on transforming this white university” (18). Sy passie was die verswarting en dus verengelsing van UP en daarna UV.
Jansen het ‘n weersin in die foto’s van sy voorgangers omdat daardie dekane almal “stern and austere Afrikaner men” was (6). “They would be buried” (217). Aan UP van weleer is uitmuntende werk in opvoedkunde gepubliseer maar beterweter Jansen maak dit alles af as “pseudo-scientific pretenses” (298) en “offensive and outdated materials” (131). “I again asked myself how whites had managed to fool black people for so long with the myth that they had academic standards” (210). Jansen het waarskynlik akademies minderwaardig gevoel weens sy gebrek aan substansiële akademiese ondervinding en prestasie. Hy erken eintlik met die frase, “what I was passionate about” (xi), dat sy boek wat ek hier bespreek eerder emosionele galbrakery as ‘n akademies-wetenskaplike werk is
“Afrikaans was not my first language” (4). Afrikaans is ook nie sy huistaal nie. Maar dit is ‘n politiek-gemotiveerde keuse wat Jansen gemaak het. Afrikaans is letterlik sy moedertaal, maar soos by so baie ontwikkelde bruines is daar by hom geen lojaliteit jeens Afrikaans nie. Hy verkondig selfs die soliede twak dat Afrikaners beweer “that they created out of nothing their own language” (61). Hy noem Afrikaans “a familiar but uneasy language. Like many black South Africans, I felt uncomfortable with Afrikaans” (7). “I tried to improve my facility in Afrikaans” (20-21). “I was trying to communicate in Afrikaans when the strongest emotions and the language fluency I had available were in English” (233). Wat Afrikaanse skole betref kom Jansen met die gemene en verderflike argument van “keeping out black children and teachers under the pretense of protecting language rights” (10).
“Afrikaans becomes a respectable way of keeping out black people without the burden of having to make nasty racial arguments” (36). “Afrikaans would be incited as a shield to fight battles over other things” (246). “The shift in language policy at a university is not simply a pragmatic response to include black and other non-Afrikaans speakers; it is read as an attack on the last vestiges of Afrikaner culture and heritage” (69). Omdat hy geen erg aan Afrikaans het nie, kan/wil Jansen hom nie indink in Afrikaners se opregte gehegtheid aan hulle taal nie. Dan openbaar hy die sluwe paai-laai wat hy aan UV uitgehaal het: “Shifting the language policy toward English too quickly would alienate Afrikaans students” (19). “UP will inevitably move toward becoming an English-medium university” (247).
By Jansen is daar nie ‘n gematigde houding jeens blankes nie. Hy beweer dat sy grootouers se eiendom in Montagu aan blankes gegee (“given”) (89, 91) is, terwyl daar destyds ingevolge die groepsgebiedewet in werklikheid nooit sprake van onteiening sonder vergoeding was nie. Dit is waarom die ANC met sy beoogde owerheidsdiefstal van blanke eiendom nie kan beweer dat hy soos die NP-regering maak nie. Maar Jansen se valse vertolking, “what whites stole from my grandparents” (92), verklaar glo sy “hatred at the time for all things white” (89). Plekke soos Distrik Ses “bred within me a deep anger and resentment toward whites. By the time I was introduced to the philosophy of black consciousness, I found this assertive thinking that made black identity and black power central to its ideological tenets much more appealing than the nonracialism of Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress. I had firm views about white privilege and a very clear understanding about redistribution from white hands back to the original inhabitants of the land” (6). Wie was hierdie oorspronlike inwoners? Die Khoi-San en sekerlik nie die swartes nie.
Jansen is ‘n aanhanger van swart mag, maar dit is juis uit hierdie oord dat blanke heerskappy (“supremacy”) veroordeel word. Dit is moontlik dat blankes nie ten koste van ander ras- of etniese groepe bevoordeel is nie; dat hulle sukses aan visie, kreatiwiteit, kundigheid, werkywer, ens, toegeskryf kan word. “What whites achieved was on the basis of their own hard work in a barren land through superior skills” (39). Inderdaad! Dit is waarom Suid-Afrika voor 1994 die suksesvolste en vooruitstrewendste land in Afrika was. Maar mense soos Jansen en Nelson Mandela dink anders. Mandela is in 1991 verhoed om ‘n toespraak op die UP-kampus te hou toe Afrikanerstudente nog murg in hulle pype gehad het.* Mandela sou toe (soos ook in sy outobiografie) op sy misleidende en vermetele manier gesê het: “Whites are living on a volcano. They are deluded if they think they can continue to live as they have on the backs of Black South Africans” (116). Jansen noem dit “a masterful speech that was conciliatory” (116). [* Jansen verskaf ‘n tabel met besonderhede van die protesaksies wat UP-studente in 1990-2007 teen transformasie geloods het (118-119).]
Suid-Afrika onder blanke beheer word ‘n “settler state” (24) en agterlik (25) genoem. Nelson Mandela word geloof as “the international icon of political liberation and human decency” (26). In 1994 neem Mandela se “impressive leadership” ‘n aanvang (27). “Blacks are in power, and things look very, very hopeful” (28). “Jobs favor blacks. Promotions favor blacks … better-qualified whites being overlooked in favor of less-qualified blacks. It is, after all, a black country … Whites have accumulated assets on the back of race … everybody – the black peasant and the white capitalist – has the same vote” (29). Dít is Jansen se idee van geregtigheid. Rassediskriminasie is in orde mits dit ten koste van blankes gepleeg word. “Discrimination in favor of blacks cannot have an end date” (31). Teen blankes moet gediskrimineer word omdat “every white South African was a perpetrator of, and inside, this evil system of Apartheid” (60). Maar hoe kan die huidige militant voortgesette rassediskriminasie teen blankes goedgepraat word as rassediskriminasie in beginsel verkeerd, dus”principally wrong and evil” (63), is?
Waar Jansen dit reg het, is wanneer hy 1994 bestempel as “the complete shift of power into black hands” (45). “Nobody expect[ed] that negotiations will, in the end, be the simple handover op power to a black majority. In short, nobody expect[ed] defeat of such proportions” (46). Dit word dikwels die wonder (“miracle”) van die nuwe Suid-Afrika genoem. In werklikheid is dit die resultaat van die bodemlose onnoselheid van ‘n klein groepie Afrikaanssprekende blankes wat sedertdien geen steun meer in Afrikanergeledere verdien of geniet nie. “There is a deep resentment … of the old government for relinguishing power in such a careless manner … the weak-kneed white politicians who betrayed the knowledge, culture, and identity of the Afrikaner” (47).
“The newfound power of the victors must be enforced” (27-28). “The [ANC] government has started to flex its racial muscle … Schools must be integrated” (36). Die nuwe bedeling bring dus nie vryheid nie maar gedwonge rasse-integrasie mee. Swartes is volgens Jansen die wenners en die blankes die verloorders. Ná die Anglo-Boere-oorlog (ABO) is 1994 “the second defeat” (34, 35) van Afrikaners en Jansen juig daaroor. Die ABO dien glo as grondslag vir die “anti-English prejudice” by Afrikaners (67). Wraakgierig wil Jansen die blankes verder in die grond druk. Hy betreur die “moderate” (82) of “soft terms of transition” (29). “Nobody pays attention to the pain of losing” (30). Spesifiek die Afrikaners ly glo aan “feelings of inferiority” (32). Hulle behoort hulle te skaam (34).
Op allerhande maniere het Jansen sy pos as dekaan gebruik/misbruik om rasse-integrasie te bevorder. “Transformation ideals … brought me to this white university” (160). “I invited ten first-year students every week to sit down with me for lunch … the instruction given was that five of the students should be black and five white” (11). Daar was dus altyd meer swartes as wittes aan die tafel. Hy het gereël dat sy studente die Voortrekkermonument en die Apartheidsmuseum besoek en dan agterna hulle gewaarwordinge bespreek (132). Daar is geen moontlikheid dat Jansen en diesulkes op ‘n ewewigtige manier ‘n bespreking oor hierdie onderwerp kan lei nie. Jansen is geen onpartydige arbiter nie. Hy bevorder anti-Afrikaner “disruptive knowledge.” Dit vereis “white students to be set in critical dialogue with black students; to observe examples of leadership [ie Jansen] and living that counter their own logics of race and identity; and to engage the new knowledge presented (the Apartheid Museum, for example) through reexamination of the old knowledge given (the Voortrekker Monument, as the counterpoint example)” (266).
Jansen vertel aan sy blanke studente: “The single most important challenge they face to making it in the new South Africa is to move out of their white comfort zone and to embrace, not tolerate, their fellow human beings who, despite the accident of skin color, are in fact no [!] different from them” (90). Daarmee ontken hy die werklikheid van bv grondige kultuurverskille. Jansen vertel met smaak hoe hy na bewering die leviete aan twee Afrikanerskoolhoofde voorgelees het. “This is a South African university and not an Afrikaans university … my faculty will take in more and more black students, and this means flexibility on the language policy … There is … no [!] anti-Afrikaans sentiment in my leadership of the faculty, but at the same time the deracialization of the university is a national priority [!]” (102-103). “These two Afrikaner principals know the stakes and want not only to ensure language exclusiveness (and thereby racial segregation) in their schools but to retain this political sense into the university as well. As we part, I make clear that history is against their kind of conservative thinking” (104).
Jansen het nie gehou van die nie-onderdanige houding van ‘n blanke boer wat hom kom spreek het oor sy dogter wat ‘n UP-student is nie. “I was going to put him in his place … ‘Now listen here, you, this is my office, and in my office, I tell you what to do. So sit down or get out of here'” (241). Tot watter gevolgtrekkings kom Jansen? “This tendency among white men toward spontaneous combustion” (242) en “What was happening to white parents in these cases was the confrontation of intimate knowledge with new knowledge through the leadership of black people” (243).
Jansen het van sy dekaanskap gebruik/misbruik gemaak om van blanke dosente ontslae te raak (206-207). In hulle plek “more and more like-minded [Jansenist] scholars were hired from the outside” (15). “It called for courageous action with respect to hiring new staff from outside the institutional culture” (18). Die resultaat is “a more cosmopolitan crew of national and international academics” (195); dus dosente wat verkieslik nie-wit en beslis nie-Afrikaans is. “Black colleagues had a broader repertoire of theories and methods, a more fluent language, and a more worldly sense of the intellectual landscape within which ideas were born” (225). Hiervolgens behoort Afrika die voorste kontinent op aarde te wees.
“I traveled to leading universities in North America and Europe, determined to find black South Africans who were in the terminal stage of their doctoral studies and regarded by their academic mentors as holding promise of becoming fine scholars” (205). “I also traveled inside South Africa seeking out excellent black and white academics who had differing social and especially intellectual backgounds, and who could help to transform the foundations that held educational knowledge captive at UP” (205-206). Jansen se ideale was “racial diversity, gender affirmation, and internationalism” (223). “At stake was the broader transformation of the Faculty, of teacher education, of the university, and of the country” (225). Jansen dink dat hy aan UP die groot indoena hiervoor was.
“Departmental designations … had to be renamed and the titles of courses had to reflect a new set of social realities” (15). Jansen het ook begin met “aggressive recruitment of reluctant black students” (19). Ampshalwe leef hy sy swartmagoortuigings vryelik uit asof dit bo verdenking is, maar dan matig hy hom aan om ‘n kollega aan te spreek omdat hy lid van die Boederbond, daardie “hated society,” is (150). In die UP-senaat is genoem “UP was still the first choice for most Afrikaans-speaking students, that these Afrikaans-speaking students had the best high school grades, and the highest pass and progression rates once admitted” (157). Sulke akademies relevante feite ten gunste van Afrikaners wil Jansen nie hoor nie. “Why would a university leader take something as trivial as the race and language of a particular group, his group, to make such specific ethnic claims? … such information by direct inference was in fact offensive to black students and faculty” (157). Die waarheid kan seermaak.
As iemand wat sy proefskrif oor leerplanne geskryf het, is kurrikulumverandering uiteraard een van die baie terreine waarop Jansen dink dat hy ‘n deskundige is. Aan UP het hy met “sweeping reforms” (175) die opvoedkunde-leerplanne getransformeer om dit te reinig van blank- en veral Afrikanergesentreerdheid; dus die “energetic pursuit of curriculum change seeking social justice and corrective knowledge” (197). “A completely [!] new knowledge [Jansenism] would sweep teaching, learning, and assessment within the broad teacher education curriculum … The more than 500 modules made it almost impossible to scrutinize each learning unit to determine the extent to which it shifted the deeper understandings of race, knowledge, and identity toward a more open, tentative [!], and democratic [!] knowledge of school and society” (194). Jansen reproduseer die teks van sy kritiek op die leerplan van ‘n opvoedkunde-semestermodule (176-177). Hy het die betrokke twee dosente op die dekaansmat gekry en sy preek op hierdie (innemend-beskeie) manier afgesluit: “‘I don’t think you understand a word I wrote,’ I told my colleagues, and asked them to leave” (178).
Die nie-opvoedkunde-leerplanne wat buite Jansen se jurisdiksie geval het, is glo nie so deeglik getransformeer nie. Skynaanpassings is gedoen. “It is almost too easy to grant this kind of curriculum the respect of analysis, but it is central to my argument that just below the external changes of the institutional curriculum to conform with new regulatory demands lies an as yet undisturbed set of assumptions about race, knowledge, and identity” (183).
Jansen dink blykbaar dat net swartes die eens Afrikaanse universiteite op die pad van transformasie kan lei. “Consider the university leader who decided to have white Afrikaner colleagues lead workshops on diversity on the Pretoria campus! I repeatedly raised objections, arguing that you could not ask those who were shaped by, and benefitted from, social and institutional racism to be the same persons leading its undoing” (192).
Die waarheid van die veralgemenings wat Jansen oor Suid-Afrikaanse universiteite kwytraak, kan bevraagteken word, bv “the humanities are weakest at the Afrikaans universities and the [natural] sciences are strongest” (180). Hoekom? Jansen verskaf ‘n politieke verklaring: “Science was deployed in the services of the racist state” (180). Die Engelstalige universiteite se leerplanne, genoem “open knowledge systems”, is glo baie beter as dié van die histories Afrikaanse universiteite, genoem “closed knowledge systems” (174).
“More than any other group, the Afrikaner child is a product of an intense set of closed circle interactions that establish and reinforce identity, memory, and knowledge of the past” (70). Hulle leer glo “prejudices toward the English, inherit negativism toward black people, and receive apocalyptic views about post-Apartheid society” (104). “The children probably come away with knowledge of a crumbling society going to the dogs. There is no sense of hope … no … commitment to change, and no anticipation of great things to come” (105) – soos owerheidsdiefstal sonder vergoeding van blanke eiendom, staatskaping, rommelstatus, ens? Volgens Jansen se insig is ons verlede “ugly” (40), “terrible” (41), “atrocious” (69), “painful” (111), ens. “The state media, now in black hands offer different interpretations of the past, present, and future” (88). Ja, deesdae word daar sekerlik ander vertolkings aangebied, maar is hulle nader aan die waarheid? Jansen gee voor dat Afrikaners se verlede so sleg is dat hulle dit nie eens kan verdedig nie: “a culture that still values silence over dialogue about the past” (93).
Daar word na allerhande soorte kennis verwys: fraught, received, transmitted, unexamined, concealed, embedded, settled, controlling, disciplining, direct, indirect, secondhand, fairy-tale, justificatory, dangerous, offensive, horrific, poisonous, traumatic, defensive, confessional, bitter, new, emotional, embracing, corrective, transformative, disruptive, common, personal, intimate, ens, en natuurlik: Apartheid. Gunstige/goeie soorte kennis word aan swartes toegeskryf terwyl ongunstige/slegte kennis aan blankes, veral Afrikaners, toegedig word.
Jansen skryf bv van “the pounding burden of guilty knowledge” (265). Hy verwys na “a new official knowledge” wat glo onderrig moet word met “very different victor narratives” (189). “Knowledge was, and still largely is, white knowledge” (20), wat verstaanbaar is omdat dit blankes is wat bv kreatief dink, ondernemingsgees het en hulle verworwe kennis as inligting rekordeer. Jansen beweer dat die kennis wat aan Afrikaners oorgedra word, bv deur hulle ouers, sleg is. Enersyds is dit “knowledge of a cleaned-up past” (96), want Afrikaners het mos na bewering ‘n morsige verlede. Andersyds: “It was knowledge of black people as terrorists and Communists and of white people as Christian and civilized. It presented black people as a threat to the very existence of white people. Through this mix of activities, children again gained knowledge of fear, the distrust of difference, the defense of privilege, and the acceptance of military-type authoritarian discipline as normative in school and society” (85). Jansen beweer skoolkinders is geleer “how to shoot” in die “school cadet programme” (84). Ek is onbewus hiervan.
Daar is by Jansen geen twyfel dat Engelssprekende blankes beter as Afrikaners is nie. “Afrikaner children appear to be more prejudiced toward blacks than English-speaking children” (84). Aan UP ervaar Jansen die Afrikaner-damesstudente as meer duldbaar as die Afrikaner-mansstudente omdat daar by hierdie mans groter weerstand teen rasse-integrasie is (135). “The gendered nature of confrontation is of course [!] an artifact of the patriarchal character of Afrikaner society and of the aggressive militarism that defined Afrikaner nationalist politics for more than a century” (143). Na die vandalisme, sabotasie, terrorisme, ens, wat so kenmerkend van die ANC/UDF en PAC se politiek was en die gewelddadigheid wat steeds kenmerkend van hulle ondersteuners is, verwys Jansen nooit nie. Hy skryf eerder van “the illegal and murderous activities of the [pre-1994] defense force” (286).
Gedwonge rasse-integrasie is vir Jansen die hoofkuur vir Afrikaners se slegtheid. Hy verwys na ‘n spesifieke skool: “This school … remains largely white and all-Afrikaans after more than fourteen years of South Africa’s nonracial democracy. The pattern of racial settlement remains undisturbed in this school as well, with disastrous social consequences for these people” (94). Afrikanerskole is glo “culturally dangerous … It is an island separated from the realities of a changing South Africa” (100). Alternatiewelik kan ‘n mens redeneer dat sulke skole juis kultuurbehoudend is, maar Jansen redeneer dat sulke kinders “social misfits” sal wees (100). “By not learning about the richness of cultures, traditions, and beliefs among all South Africa’s children, young white students are socially, linguistically, and culturally stunted, precisely because of the inwardlooking nature of their socialization in the early years” (100-101). Maar Jansen wil Afrikaners juis van hulle kultuur en tradisies vervreem en andersoortige kultuur en tradisies aan hulle opdring. Hy noem dit openheid.
Waarin Jansen hom nie kan indink nie is dat Afrikaners aparte skole en aparte sosiale omstandighede verkies; dat kultuurbehoud vir hulle belangrik is omdat hulle kultuur, ten minste vir hulle, beter as ander kulture is. “Surely any notion of a Voortrekker youth is anachronistic” (94). Hy gaan dan voort om die Voortrekkermonument, die Boererepublieke en Afrikaners se historiese vlae en volksliedere as absurd af te kraak (95). En die jaarlikse klopse-karnaval? Dié moet seker voortgaan omdat dit met die armsalige destydse slawe verbind word. Watter soort skool vind guns in Jansen se oë? Hoërskool JG Strijdom wat nou Diversity High heet. “Their plans for integration seem to work” (97). Wat Jansen dwarsdeur sy boek openbaar, is sy “oversensitive racial antennae” (99) wat by voorkeur in blatante Afrikanerhaat uitdrukking vind.
“I find ample evidence for the sociological claim that schools reflect racial ideologies from the broader society and are themselves race-making institutions” (108). Jansen wil rasgeïntegreerde skole en universiteite as Trojaanse perde gebruik om Afrikanerkultuur tot in die grond af te breek. “This is what makes it so difficult for white Afrikaans students to ‘mix’ (as they often put it) with those who are different: black students, white English students, international students, gay and lesbian students” (108). “The longer white students remain inside these cultural and linguistic enclaves, the more difficult it becomes to lead a normal, open, and integrated life in the broader society” (109).
Christi van der Westhuizen word ‘n “young journalist-intellectual” genoem (42) en Amanda Strydom ‘n “progressive Afrikaans singer” (229). Van Antjie Krog word die volgende inflame leuens aangehaal: “All the words used to humiliate, all the orders given to kill, belonged to the language of my heart” (114), dus Afrikaans. Maar Jansen lewer die duidelikste bewys van sy verbete anti-Afrikanergesindheid in sy bespreking van die Lamont-sage van 1931. Lamont het dit teen sowel die swartes as die Afrikaners gehad en albei sleggesê. Wat doen Jansen? Hy rep nie ‘n woord oor wat Lamont van die swartes geskryf het nie, maar hy haal met graagte aan hoe sleg die Boere gesê word: “The Boer predikants are ‘narrow-minded, intolerant, selfish, harsh, and unspiritual’; the Boers were the target of a British mission ‘to civilize and educate them’ since ‘the back-veld Boer bathes only for baptism, marriage and burial’ and ‘has no notions about sanitation and often uses his bedroom as a latrine.’ Not only were the Voortrekkers ‘illiterate boors, surly and morose’ but ‘their favourite pastime was begetting children, both with their wives and their numerous black concubines.’ These ‘utterly degenerate’ trekkers lived ‘worse than natives'” (298). Dit is baie duidelik dat Jansen ook/veral buitelandse lesers vir sy boek in gedagte gehad het, vandaar die vertaling van Afrikaanse woorde. Die boek is terseldertyd ook deur Stanford University Press gepubliseer. As iemand steeds getwyfel het oor Jansen se uiters negatiewe gesindheid teenoor Afrikaners, is alle twyfel nou uit die weg geruim.
“What makes colleagues such a fascinating link in the transmission of knowledge is that they represent the generation having direct experience of living in both worlds. They have knowledge of good (the democratic order) and evil (the Apartheid order)” (168). Dit is moeilik om te glo dat ‘n professor en daarby iemand wat op internasionale akademiese aansien aanspraak maak en topposte beklee het, so ‘n ongenuanseerde standpunt kan huldig. Maar sy mening vloei voort uit kritiese teorie. “By dividing the world neatly into rival camps – the oppressor and the oppressed – a self-righteous stance is assumed that absolves the teacher/liberator or the critical theorist from critically engaging their own place in the state of oppression” (259). Jansen se sogenaamde “critical knowledge” het as aanloop “disrupting [the] received knowledge” (264) van blankes, veral Afrikaners. Die kennis oor die verlede wat Afrikanerkinders van hulle ouers ontvang, is indirekte kennis. Daardie “indirect knowledge … should be directly challenged and critically engaged as a matter of social justice” (264) deur aktivistiese opvoedkundiges soos Jansen en diesulkes.
Danksy demokrasie en die ANC-regering lewe ons glo deesdae “under the pressing sunshine of a new regime of truth” (171). Die dogmaties bevooroordeelde Jansen kan nie verstaan waarom blankes, eintlik Afrikaners, nie met hom in gesprek wil tree oor die verlede nie (147). Die voor die hand liggende rede is dat dit nodelose gesprekke sal wees. Let krities op Jansen se benadering: “You want to talk, not for purposes of accusation but simply out of a deep and unfulfilled desire to know. Knowing about the other side, the perpetrators [!], what happened, resolves something deep inside the emotional and psychological lives of the victims [!]. It is the kind of knowing that black people who lost loved ones during the Apartheid years demonstrate so powerfully at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission” (148). Maar wat van die blankes wat weens terrorisme én sedert 1994 tot op hede geliefdes verloor het weens swart gewelddadigheid? Jansen het geen erg aan “white martyrological memory” nie (149), maar van beweerde swart “pyn” is hy oorbewus.
Jansen is een van diegene “who firmly believed that Afrikaners were racial ideoglots who persecuted black people simply because they are black” (240). “Ideoglots” beteken “stubborn and ignorant people without the capacity to see beyond their own rigidity of mind” (306). In die lig van die voorafgaande is dit vir my duidelik dat dit veeleerder Jansen is wat die ideoglot is.
“For interruption of received knowledge to work, the white student must first be drawn into a trusting relationship” (267). Jansen is ‘n wolf in skaapsklere. Hy het Afrikanerstudente aan UP en UV met sy destruktiewe marxistiese idees vergiftig. Aan hom word sedert onlangs die geleentheid gebied om dieselfde aan US te doen.
Skrywer Leon LemmerGepubliseer op 24 Maart 2018 Kategorieë Leon Lemmer, RubriekeSleutelwoord afrikaans, Afrikaners, apartheid, ideoglot, Jonathan Jansen, kleurling, ras
Vorige Vorige artikel: Brief: Ons is slagoffers van volksmoord
Volgende Volgende artikel: Klaas Waarzegger: Malema heel moontlik die volgende SA president