Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaylinux | Hacker News Reader

It’s civil disobedience. I’m not sure of how SA works , but in the U.S civil disobedience was regularly used to challenge laws during the 20th century. Going into white only areas and living there, forcing de segregation was one such technique.

Civil disobedience was rife in South Africa in the late 1980s. (1) But not usually friendly, and not usually in Bishopscourt.

https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/state-emergency-1985

Both Nelson Mandela and Tutu were greatly influenced by Gandhi. What is less known is that Gandhi's non-violent political philosophy germinated in Africa, greatly influenced by African culture and politics.

Interesting that Gandhi was very racist toward black Africans, and pro-segregation.

> We must at present do our best to form ... a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. - Thomas Babington Macaulay

I would hesitate to call Gandhi a racist, but he definitely was prejudiced against black Africans (in the beginning) as a result of what would today be called brainwashing / indoctrination (of Macaulayism) by the colonial British. Due to this policy of Macaulayism (to tolerate certain indians educated in the British system as equals), Gandhi was largely insulated from British racism in India and UK. So he had not only inculcated the idea that western culture was superior but was also a strong and vocal advocate for the British way.

What changed his worldview was the racism he experienced in Africa. In general, indians were treated differently in Africa. But he also personally experienced racism when he was once asked to get out of a first class compartment, despite having the train ticket for it, because a white man had demanded that he be removed.

The other major thing that changed his opinion of the British completely was when he saw the brutality of colonialism and war. A naive Gandhi believed it was his duty to assist the British empire and so he volunteered as a non-combatant with other indians, to assist the British effort in the Anglo-Boer War.

What he saw horrified and scarred him for life. He then swung to opposite spectrum and believed the British to be the devil's incarnation.

He was in Africa for 21 years and his life experiences, and African culture and politics, greatly influenced his political philosophy. As his political philosophy evolved, he found the right balance between blind admiration to blind hatred of the British empire, their culture and indian culture too.

Gandhi was a racist because he held racist views. That's what a racist is.

I get there was a bit of cheek about it, just on the scale of civil disobedience in the country I didn't think "living in a big mansion in the richest neighborhood" would register much of a blip but maybe I'm wrong.

Clearly he was in a more privileged position than a random person from a black township, who would have been swiftly packed into the back of a Land Rover and dealt with extremely harshly. Even people with public prominence weren't exempt, as the case of Steve Biko shows. But Tutu was using the little power he had - as an official representative of the church - to challenge the apartheid laws in an obvious way. There were much easier routes he could have taken - challenging the laws with words, but living somewhere that wouldn't provoke the police. I don't know you, but I get the feeling you don't know quite how vicious the apartheid regime was, and the kind of physical risk that this entailed. Because no-one had done it before, he didn't really know what kind of response he was going to get. "Cheek" doesn't really cover it.

You can dismiss almost anything with that. "I didn't think sitting down on the bus would register much of a blip."

The fact that we know about it means that it did register.

That's a non sequitur. I know about lots of things that were not civil disobedience.

But you don't know about many specific random people with no connection to you taking a jog or sitting down on a bus because it made enough of an impact on other people that they told you about it

I think there are two elements at play.

Consider a person of colour living in the eponymous mansion of the city's wealthiest neighborhood.

For a racist government, it's a symbol of defiance.

For other people of colour, who have been told by the government their whole lives that they are worthless, good only for manual labour -- one of their own is living in the oldest mansion in the fanciest neighborhood in town. It's an affirmation of their worth.

As a symbol, his place of residence had great power.

Yes, and doing that in a disarming way, with cheerful friendliness, and everyday normality.

I just had the idea that things were a lot further along in the revolt against the regime at that point in time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com