Desmond Tutu has Alzheimers

Tax the Whites

Very recently, South African Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for “rich whites” to be taxed to help rebuild South Africa. Is he right?

There are a number of [articles](http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/tutu-urges-haves-to-cough-up-1.1121060) on the various news sites at present, [analysing Tutu’s call](http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/tutu-calls-for-wealth-tax-on-whites-1.1116744). Most of the articles are either written by liberals, agreeing with Tutu’s implicit reference to “white collective guilt”, or, they’re reactionary right-wing responses which accuse him of “reverse racism”, as it is popularly termed in South Africa. (In South Africa there seems to be an implicit assumption that ‘racism’ means white-on-black racism).

For those readers of mine who do not know who Tutu is, he is a former revolutionary, but not a member of the ANC, and he usually represents a voice of reason, typically calling the ANC to task over their tendencies to fall in line with the angry policies of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. He was the head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission - a panel of judges who dealt with cases of abuse after the fall of apartheid, much like the Nuremberg trials. So his recent remarks come as a shock.

Tutu’s argument, to put it briefly, is as follows. During Apartheid, as he said, white people had the benefit of comfortable homes, nice jobs, nice schools, and a cushy life in general. All the manual labour, particularly on the gold mines which brought in the vast wealth of the white South African elite, was done by black labourers, working on wages just short of slave pay. The lifestyle of the white South Africans was made possible through the labour of the blacks. Furthermore, because of the lack of opportunities, such as being forced to live in run-down shanty towns without running water or electricity, not to mention poor pay, physical abuse and violence, South African blacks, as he argues, have been ‘traumatised’, and emotionally scarred, left with a feeling of impotence. But it was worse than that. As my audience may be aware, black South Africans were not considered citizens as such, and lacked any such rights. They were obliged, when not employed, to live in “homelands”, much like the Native American reserves seen in the USA. When they entered Apartheid South Africa, they had to carry a passport. Furthermore, the Apartheid government also imposed a form of public schooling known as Bantu Education (Bantu is the Nguni language term for ‘people’). Bantu Education taught the black man that he was suitable only for manual labour. Classes included domestic science and gardening. Bantu Education was designed to ensure that the black man could never take the jobs away from the whites again. Of course, this is a very abridged and simplified history, that neglects the nuances of history and politics of the time. But it will suffice to illustrate Tutu’s argument.

What disturbs me about this debate is the immensely emotionally charged irrational responses that it has stirred up. People are ranting on all sides. But it seems like no-one, at least in the political circles, has bothered to actually think through the logic of the situation, or the possible responses to it.

Firstly, I must agree with the ranters on the right, that Tutu’s call at the very least smacks of racism. The whole system of Apartheid was based on the very premise that “race” is real, and that people can and ought to be classified according to its strictures, much like dogs. So my first reaction to this is to ask: How is this not perpetuating the debilitating classification system created by Apartheid? If Tutu admits that “blacks” are debilitated and traumatised by the racist classification system known as Apartheid, how is perpetuating that system any help?

Well, he will answer, of course, it is about _restorative_ justice. If you have had everything taken from you - land, dignity, education, work opportunities, human rights - you are, morally speaking, entitled to get it back. So, the question is how? This is not a form of retribution. Retribution would involve seizing land without compensation, and imposing the same kinds of abuses on white people that black people were subjected to. The ANC has not done this, although, morally speaking, they would have had a case for so doing. Nor is Tutu advocating this. Rather, he is arguing that since all the wealth, particularly the mineral wealth, of South Africa, has supported a comfortable lifestyle for whites, that it has come to high time that the original “owners” of the wealth are refunded.

I almost agree with his logic here, and it is a familiar logic that we all seem to take for granted. The idea is that there is such a thing as a group of people, and if a group of people do something wrong, they must pay for it, as a group. There are plenty of historical precedents. Think of the Treaty of Versailles, for instance. Germany was punished as a nation, for the World War. Should the whites of South Africa not be subjected to similar punishments?

I don’t think the case is that straightforward. Obviously, one might make an ad hominem argument here, and accuse me (as someone in the target group), of trying to escape a moral duty, albeit a potentially unpleasant one. That’s not the case. I am viewing this strictly as someone whose Masters degree in Philosophy looked precisely at the concept of moral accountability and Free Will. If you wish to read this piece, it is available on [Academia.edu](Academia.edu). In my thesis, I argued that moral accountability stems from reactive attitudes - gut reactions, desires for revenge. I argued that there is no compelling case for punitive justice; all forms of justice should be _remedial_, i.e. neither restorative nor punitive, but aimed at improving the person who committed the injustice. Obviously, as I have admitted above, Tutu’s call is not an example of punitive or retributive justice - it is restorative justice. The point is, he is still relying on the assumption of ‘group accountability’, or, that if you create some arbitrary grouping - let’s say - a race - that you can then hold the entire group responsible for the actions of some of its members. Another example would be, in his logic, to impose a fine on all people who live in council houses in the UK, as restorative justice for the recent riots perpetrated by a few of their number. Or perhaps, make all persons on the dole have to now sweep up the mess that the rioters made, and pay up for all the looted goods (regardless of whether or not they were actually involved in the riots). Does that make sense? It doesn’t make much sense to me. I remember when I was at school and the class clown disrupted the teacher’s sermon. I recall that many teachers would detain the _entire class_ because of the actions of this individual clown, and that this happened with great regularity. Furthermore, because we were detained, I would often miss the only bus that I could catch to get home that afternoon. So, because of the actions of one class clown, I often had to wait even longer than the detention, until my parents could drive to the school to fetch me. Was this fair? I didn’t think so at the time, and I still don’t. I do not accept the concept of group responsibility. You cannot tar people with the same brush; this is called “stereotyping”.

Let me make the case even further. During Apartheid, the majority of English-speaking white South Africans _opposed_ apartheid. In the Apartheid parliament, there were two political parties - pretty much as there are now. There was the Nationalist party, predominantly Afrikaans (of Dutch descent), who were the architects of Apartheid. They were opposed regularly, on all their policies, by the PFP - the Progressive Federal Party, mostly voted for by the English. The PFP survives to this day as the DA - the Democratic Alliance, and they’re still the official opposition in parliament. This is not to “blame” the Afrikaners for apartheid. Indeed, the majority of white ANC members during apartheid were Afrikaans, not English. The point I’m making is that it’s not accurate, or fair, to assume that the actions of some are a reflection of the attitudes or beliefs or tendencies of the group from which they come. Would Tutu want Beyers Naude, Braam Fischer, or Joe Slovo to pay his “white” tax? I hope not.

What about people born after the fall of Apartheid? Must a 16-year-old, now, be taxed under Tutu’s “white tax”, in two years from now, because he happens to be white? He had nothing to do with Apartheid. He never voted for it or supported it, and his parents have lived under the ANC government and been subjected to Affirmative Action exclusion, and so, have not benefited from Apartheid. This concept of inherited guilt just doesn’t make sense for me. If inherited guilt made sense, the USA would execute murderers’ children too. This is the logic inherent in the concept of inherited guilt. So if we don’t accept it for criminals, why do we accept it in politics?

So while I agree with Tutu that the black people of South Africa suffered terribly, and that they are due some form of redress, I cannot see that his proposal is sensible. As I mentioned, it just perpetuates racism, because it is targeting a particular race. Let me give you an example. There are currently [600 000 “poor whites” in South Africa](http://www.kimludbrook.com/photo-essays/coronation-park.html) - mostly Afrikaners. If you think “poor” means living in a council house, no. It means living in a shack and queueing for soup. It was this phenomenon - extremely poor white people - which created the monster of the Nationalist Party in the first place. It was this that caused the Afrikaner to fear black power. But the new government aggressively pursued Affirmative Action strategies which have led to the present situation, and Tutu’s call is anything but a call to ease off. It is hard to not see the proposal as a punitive proposal. I can see that Tutu, knowing what he is normally like, is probably intending it as a form of “upliftment”. You can see the general idea; the super-rich in South Africa are mostly white, except for some former communist ANC cadres who are now on various corporations’ boards of directors. These super-rich white people mostly acquired their wealth on the stock exchange or through gold. Anglo American, De Beers, and SAB Miller were all South African companies that made their money off black labour. It makes sense that they should give something back to the country. But why does Tutu insist on labelling these corporate types as “white”? Most of them have his former struggle comrades on the boards. They’re all living in Sandton, wearing Rolexes. So much for their claims to communism!

Moreover, I dispute the oft-cited claim that whites benefited under apartheid. Certainly, the mining magnates became super-wealthy off exploitative labour practices. But almost all of those mining magnates now live in, and run their companies from, London. Must Britain pay Tutu’s tax? I remember what it was like living under Apartheid. You lived in constant fear of “Big Brother” coming to arrest you without trial on suspicion of being sympathetic to the struggle. You dared not say anything too strong against the Apartheid government. You had to attend compulsory military training at school (“Cadets”), and compulsory military service. You had to attend a brainwashing programme called “veldskool” - literally field school or savannah school. It was a survival tactic training programme, laden with flag saluting and Christianity. If you went into the army, you had to go into the “townships”, or black areas, and shoot your fellow citizens. Psychological trauma was irrelevant. Conscientious objection meant five years of jail instead of two in the army. I am not sure which part of this Tutu thinks is easy or “cushy”. Furthermore, no-one received handouts from the government. The apartheid government was not a socialist government. We had to pay for everything. Unlike the present government, whites under apartheid did not get free houses and water and electricity simply because of our skin colour. Everyone had to get a job and pay their own way. The apartheid government did not provide jobs for whites directly (although it did have a bloated bureaucracy), and it certainly did not provide a dole. As for “nice schools”, that was paid for out of tax money, and whites had to pay school fees. There was no free schooling. So I am not sure quite how most white people benefited from apartheid. Perhaps they benefited because of the lack of competition for resources. What does that mean? The only difference, fiscally speaking, was that the taxes went to pay for the needs of five million people rather than fifty.

One key point, however, was raised by the De Klerk foundation, named for the former president of the apartheid government who freed Mandela. They said: Don’t the white people pay most of the taxes already anyway? So what is Tutu’s proposal? Tax the whites? They’re already being taxed - so how is this a new idea. The upper tax bracket is 40% of income. That’s not to mention the company tax that is paid before anyone receives a salary. The five million or so upper-income white South Africans have been paying taxes to support the half-unemployed black majority for seventeen years now. What more is required? Is Tutu asking for an increase in taxation? Or is he really, really asking for a racist tax on whites only? Is he planning to tax the poor whites in Coronation Park of their shacks, so that the have nothing at all? Or is he thinking of taxing only the super-wealthy? In that case, why does he not merely propose an increase in the upper-income tax bracket’s threshold? Is it really because he only wants the whites to pay? How is that not racist?

The last point I wish to make is that I do not see how Tutu’s proposal does not perpetuate the debilitating effects of apartheid on the self-esteem of the recipients of the relevant charity. How is his request not just begging? How will that fix the problem? Suppose all white South Africans agreed to a tax increase, even racially defined. How would that help? Would it really make black people feel like they were empowered, that apartheid was truly gone, that their lives would suddenly be better? Or would it just be spread thinly like the existing taxes are? Will this money be used in any other way than to line the pockets of ANC cronies? There is a term used for people who doubt that Africa can be a success: “Afropessimists”. I’m not an Afropessimist. I really believe that South Africa, and Africa in general, can work. But begging “white” people for money does not increase your self esteem, or make a country work; it just reinforces dependency on charity. “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day,” goes the old adage. I believe it is true. The best thing that Tutu could have called for is that “white” people offer to perform social services such as skills training. Now _that_ might make a difference. “Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime”.