Eusebius McKaiser
Rhodes Scholar
South Africa-at-Large 2003
Dphil Candidate (Philosophy)
St Antony's College, Oxford University .
A RESPONSE TO DOM PITOT & AN ANALYSIS OF THE MANDELA-RHODES NAME TWINNING.
In essence, Dom, I think that you miss the point. While I support the Mandela-
Rhodes foundation, I do think that Adekeye expresses a reasonable and
interesting point of view, with which many recent scholars, in fact, concur.
The tone, and most of the content, of your email implicitly - no, explicitly,
in fact - suggests that he has no appreciation of South African history, no
apprceiation of Nelson Mandela's character and place in that history and,
perhaps worst of all given his job title, no appreciation of the details of
what reconciliation means and requires. Perhaps because I have engaged the man
personally, I am better able to state that all of these insinuations are
patently false - condescending, even.
So let me re-state the essence of his view, as well as to make a few
parenthetical points.
Adekeye's view is one that is precisely deeply historically situated, contrary
to your implication that it is a wildly ahistorical and ill-considered view.
The name, and legacy, of Mandela is that of a man - person - who had/has a
deep commitment to non-discrimination, fairness, egalitarianism and other such
natural justice virtues. Rhodes , by contrast, was/is an ultimate symbol of
unfair wealth acquisition, unequal treatment of intrinsically equal human
beings, exploitation, discrimination and other such natural justice vices, if
you will. To marry these names, and thereby tap into the positive legacy and
symbolism of the Mandela name (EVEN WITH Mandela's blessing) is a move that
can rightly offend those who appreciate these gigantic differences between these
two historical characters. It is a decision that could, even if unintended,
soften some of the otherwise deservedly-nasty connotations that ' Rhodes '
usually conjures. As a political and social analyst with an historical bent,
that is exactly the genesis of Adekeye's viewpoint. It strikes me as very
reasonable. Your response, Dom, seems to be based in little attempt at getting
inside the headspace of the lingering anger that many of our fellow African
citizens feel towards a phenomenom, colonialism/oppression, that is, in
historical terms, and particularly in South Africa , still very recent.
A few parenthetical remarks:
1. There were MANY Rhodes Scholars, including South Africans (both black and
white), who were up in arms when the idea of the Mandela-Rhodes foundation was
first punted. Some of them signed a petition against the move. They tried,
unsuccessfully, to engage the Trust on the issue. These were, specifically,
scholars who were resident just a few years ago. One (unintended?) suggestion
in your piece is that, as a current scholar, you have a certain openness to
seeing the Mandela-Rhodes foundation as part of the broader South African
reconciliation miracle, in a way that an older scholar, like Adekeye, might
not be. So I thought it may be interesting to point out how controversial among
recent current scholars this debate was, just before us lot arrived here. So
Adekeye is, in fact, expressing a view held by many Rhodes Scholars, some
still bitter about the Mandela-Rhodes foundation's existence. We cannot trivialise
their sentiment, which I fear your piece does.
2. A quick second point - well, two sub-points: (a) As South Africans, we
really should stop being uncritical about our love affair with Reconciliation.
Yes, a bloody crises was averted, and in no small part this was due to the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) (and the Rugby World Cup -
seriously). But the conception of justice - 'restorative justice' - that
underpinned the TRC is not a mathematical axiom that has to be accepted.
Particularly now with the increasing gap between poor blacks and rich blacks
in South Africa , a renewed interrogation of whether 'Justice', per se, is being
experienced by millions of South Africans, will be necessary. Sometimes,
retribution is necessary for closure. Your references to 'revenge', in
opposition to reconciliation, shows a distorted understanding of different
conceptions of justice. We do not need to revise history (which is, for
Adekeye, part of what the Rhodes-Mandela foundation might amount to) in order
to express the fact that we are not vengeful. It is simply a kind of
historical retribution to keep the Rhodes name and legacy dangling uncomfortably alone
rather than expressing reconciliation by softening its image. So your
dichotomoy between reconciliation and revenge is ill-considered.
(b) Even if one is committed to reconciliation, why does that imply accepting
the twinning of Rhodes and Mandela's names? I just did not grasp the basis for
this suggestion.
- In closing, Dom, I accept the Rhodes-Mandela foundation as a good thing.
Ironically enough, I think Adekeye's opening sentences express the best
reasons for why this foundation is good: it is a practical way of making amends for
the unjust acquisition of wealth. (Hence, also, a previous argument in which I >
defended someone's right to accept the scholarship and still being able to
criticise 'The Founder', contrary to the Warden's thwarting of debate about
this legacy by saying that one should not accept the scholarship if you did
not like where the money came from - a rather silly imperative).
The biggest problem, for me, with Adekeye's analysis is hypocrisy - it was
acceptance of the Rhodes Scholarship that partly enabled him to become a
useful political and social analyst, which is a fantastic example of what wealth
redistrubition can mean. If the Mandela- Rhodes foundation allows for a new
generation of Adekeyes, then it's existence is justified. My only hope is that
more black Scholars will now come through these structures.
Your criticism of Adekeye, on the other hand, shows not even a modicum of
understanding of where the learned man comes from.
I hope this response will help.
Eusebius McKaiser .