Sandra Laing was born black, but to white parents. It would have been strange anywhere – but in apartheid South Africa it was disastrous. Long before science learned to meddle with genes, there was Sandra Laing.

She entered the world in 1955, a beautiful baby by all accounts, who could be expected to grow up in a close-knit family amid mines of gold and forests of pine. At the first sight of Sandra no one, not the nurse, her mother, father or neighbours would admit the obvious. Nature had played a trick. Abraham and Sannie Laing were white, their parents, grandparents and great grandparents were white, yet their daughter was dark. By a biological quirk, the pigment of an unknown black ancestor had lain dormant for generations and manifested in Sandra. Genetic throwbacks were not unheard of but if there was ever a wrong place and wrong time for this phenomenon, it was apartheid South Africa.

Her life is an extraordinary tale of a search for identity in a system built on race and prejudice, where home, school, job and sex life was demarcated by skin colour. Born to a conservative Afrikaner family, Sandra’s fate was to not be what she was supposed to be.

It has a happy ending, of sorts, and one which is scheduled to hit bookshops and cinemas now that Hollywood has caught wind of the story. The first biography is due out this year and a British production company has signed a deal with Miramax to make the film. Sandra Laing is about to become famous. Sitting in the back garden of her new house in Leachville, a maze of recently built estates fringing farmland east of Johannesburg, the bulky woman with the crew cut does not much resemble the svelte, toffee-coloured youngster who was photographed hugging a tall, white woman three decades ago. The psychological toll of her traumas has been immense, say friends, and Sandra, 47, is taciturn, the eye contact fleeting, the voice low. “I’m much happier with black people. I am, I was, very shy with white people. Even today I still think white people don’t like black people because of the way they treated me.” A mild way of putting things from someone who was expelled from school, mocked, abused, persecuted and told she was inferior, something less than fully human, because she lacked the pinkness expected of an Afrikaner descended from Dutch settlers. The nose and lips could be European but the skin is evidence of a liaison between a settler and native, perhaps as early as the 18th century.

“Sometimes I wonder how things might have been, what life might have been like, if I was born white. Mostly I try just to forget the past.” She speaks slowly, concentrating on each question, but it is clear she would rather play with the grandson resting on her knee, throw a ball to the dog, re-arrange shelves in the grocery shop, do anything other than an interview. Earlier she did smile, when 10 children with violins trooped into her shop, a converted front room of her house, and gave a concert to celebrate the new home and business which, it is hoped, will harbour a normal, stable life. Wellwishers and dignitaries of all colours made speeches to honour what they called a survivor, a symbol of triumph over despair. A performance by Zulu dancers drove the dog wild and Sandra even joined in the laughter.

Read full article here…

The case of the Khoi interpreter

Perhaps the most representative of the mix of South African ancestry lines dating from those early days is the marriage of Krotoa, a Khoi interpreter, also known as Eva who worked for Van Riebeeck and married a colleague of his, Danish explorer Pieter Meerhof. Burdened with the double obligation of fitting into European society and being loyal to her own people, Krotoa’s life was made even harder when Meerhof was seconded to Robben Island as superintendent. Left as one of only two women on the island when her husband was killed on a slaving expedition, and shunned by both societies, Krotoa succumbed to depression and an alcohol-related death, but left behind at least eight children, the descendants of one of whom was the progenitor of the Zaaiman family in South Africa. Some of them went on to become key figures from all spectrums – including white ex-premiers Paul Kruger, Jan Smuts and FW de Klerk.

Slave routes, slave roots

Then came the slaves: in 1658 the first two boatloads – one from Angola and one from west Africa – arrived, and some of these went on to marry Dutch citizens of the Cape or bear children by them after intermarriage became outlawed. One couple, Anna and Evert, who were purchased by the Dutch from African slave lords in Benin in 1658, produced a daughter who went on to have a son by prosperous Dutchman Bastiaan Colyn. Her son, Johannes, married a descendant of the wealthy Cloete family and purchased De Hoop op Constantia, still one of the finest estates in the Cape. After west Africa was declared out of bounds, the Dutch East India Company began bringing in slaves from the east – either from their base in Djakarta or China, Sri Lanka or India, often with Arabs as middlemen. The first boatloads arrived in 1681, and by 1730 they had extended their operations to include the Mascarenes, Mozambique and Zanzibar, with Portuguese colonists as middlemen.

With only 19 European women and 100 white free burghers at the Cape in 1677, most 13th generation South Africans with colonial ancestry have at least one slave ancestor from these parts. Though European female numbers increased 30 years later, slave women were often favoured for their beauty, and many became the ancestral mothers (or stammoeders) of generations of families in South Africa.

Read full article here…

>> Sharon Marshall <<

Arthur Kemp

Arthur Kemp alleges that only 6% of Afrikaners have mixed ancestry. This is a deliberate misinterpretation of the genetic data. It’s 6% of Afrikaner GENES, that are of non-white origin, not 6% of Afrikaner people. The same genetic data Arthur Kemp misinterprets, states that the Afrikaner genepool is 40% Dutch, 40% German, 7% French, and 7% Scottish. Does this mean that the Afrikaner population is composed of 40% Dutch, 40% Germans, 7% Scots, and 7% French? It would sound silly that all these elements represented individual ethnic personages and not genes but according to Arthur Kemp, it is so. But the reality is 6% of over all Afrikaner genes are non-white.

Research by J.A. Heese, who studied the genealogical composition of the Afrikaners looking at the period 1657 – 1867, has concluded that the Afrikaner nation´s ancestry was Dutch 34.8%, German 33.7%, French 13.2%, Non White 6.9%, British 5.2%, Other European nations 2.7%, Unknown 3.5%. GFC de Bruyn used a different form of calculation and his results were: Dutch 34.1%, German 29.2%, French 24.7%, British 0.3%, Other European nations 2.4%, Non European 5.4%, Unknown 3.9% (refer to J.S. Bergh ed., Herdenkingsjaar 1988, RTJ Lombard “Die bydrae van die Franse Hugenote tot Suid-Afrika se bevolkingsamestelling”). That means, the average Afrikaner (including Arthur Kemp himself) gets 5-7% of their ancestry from non-whites.

Arthur Kemp states that in 1685 a law was passed banning miscegenation with non-whites. The law in question banned intermarriage with slaves, but as with the American South, illicit interracial sex was far from uncommon! The law banned marriages between white settlers and SLAVES. It did not ban marriages with Coloureds and other FREE Persons of Colour. J. A. Heese, in Die Herkoms van die Afrikaner 1657-1867, presented the results of research from parish registers and other sources on the ancestors of the Afrikaners. He found that between 1660 and 1705, 191 of the settlers from Germany married or lived with women who were not pure blood Europeans. Of the women, 114 were born in the Cape (most probably mixed), 29 were Bengalis and 43 were from other Asian regions. He estimated that in 1807, between 7.2 and 10.7 percent of the ancestors of the then living Afrikaner population were Africans and Asians. His figures were perhaps inevitably conservative. It may well be that a tenth of the present Afrikaner population has Indian ancestry.

In some cases dispensations were given allowing interracial marriages. One example is the case of a Khoikhoi or Hottentot woman named Eva-Kroata. A Dutch man named Pieter Van Meerhof, married her and had 5 children with her. All of them in turn married white men. Eva-Kroata is the progenitor of a number of Afrikaner first families. These include the Krugers, Van Riebeecks, Bruyns, Van Rensburgs, Zaimans, and Pelzers, to name a few. Paul Kruger, the great revered Boer hero, is a descendant of Eva through her daughter Petronella Meerhof. Andries Pretorius, the Great Voortrekker leader was himself a descendant of two East Indian slave women, Catharina van Bengale on his mother’s side, and Helena van Malabar on his father’s side. Thus, the entire Pretorius family can trace their ancestry back to these two slave women. These well known interracial marriages, are just a fraction of the non-white blood absorbed into the modern Afrikaner genepool. Ironically, Governor Simon Van Der Stel, who passed the 1685 law, was himself of Coloured stock. He was born in Mauritius to a half-Bengalese mother.

There is also a further factor, colonial South Africa had no “one drop rule” as Arthur Kemp wants the reader to believe. A person that looked white was seen and treated as white, and was considered White by law. In fact even Apartheid did not have a one drop concept. When people were being separated into four “races”, people were divided based on their appearance, skin color, and hair texture, not their ancestry. Government officials measured peoples facial features and skull shapes and applied paper bag and pencil tests, to determine race. If a person passed the skull measurement tests, had skin lighter than a paper bag, and a comb went through their hair with ease, they were classified as “White.”

Even if a white family was found to have non-white ancestry, despite social dissapproval, that family was still white by law. An example of which, was the case of Sandra Laing. Both her biological parents were white. But she was born with brown skin and frizzly hair, although the rest of her features were European. DNA tests proved that Abraham Laing (the white father) was the biological father of Sandra Laing. The Laing’s ran into trouble when they tried to register her for school, and the government threatened to have the child reclassified as Coloured and separated from the parents. Although Sandra Laing was to be reclassified, her parents were still unquestionably white by law. And because of Sandra Laing, in 1967 a new law was passed, which stated that a child of two white parents was White. In her case, that shows a few Afrikaners had significant levels of non-white ancestry. Although as studies show, the average Afrikaner is 5-7% non-white, which is negligible. Sandra Laing’s parents were amongst the few that had as much as 20% non-white genes, even though they and her brothers look completely white. Today Sandra Laing’s brothers do not speak to her, and refuse to embrace their undeniable African heritage.

As well as the above, under Apartheid there were people changing their racial classification based on their appearance. Some light-skinned Coloureds were successfully reclassified as white under Apartheid. In fact in 1984 according to the South African government, nearly eight hundred South Africans officially crossed the racial lines. Of these, 518 light-skinned Coloureds were reclassified as white. In fact hundreds of Coloureds between 1950 and 1991, reclassified themselves as white every year. This was of course in the best interest of the National Party, which was eager to register more “white” Afrikaans-speaking voters to the voters list. This could explain the high levels of non-white ancestry in Sandra Laing’s parents. These are all facts about Apartheid South Africa which Arthur Kemp neglects to mention in his “March of the Titans“.

Also, the Afrikaans language spoken by Afrikaners, was actually originally spoken by slaves. Just like in the United States of America, where Black English or Ebonics developed from the broken English Southern dialect spoken by Black Americans, Afrikaans developed in the same way. The Afrikaans language, although Dutch based, absorbed many Khoikhoi, Malay, and Indian words. As white colonial children were raised by non-white slave mammies and had mixed-race children for playmates, one can see how the white settlers abandoned their Dutch language for Afrikaans instead. The very fact Cape Coloureds still speak Afrikaans, even though their ancestors did not participate in the Great Trek, shows that the language did not originate amongst the Voortrekkers, as Afrikaner white supremists claim. Cape Afrikaans (spoken by Coloureds) and Orange River Afrikaans (spoken by white Afrikaners), although baring dialectic differences, are similar enough to be regarded as the same language and mutually intelligible. Thus, Afrikaners ironically, speak a language with non-white origins.

To further tear down Arthur Kemp’s theory of Southern Europeans being Mulattoes while Afrikaners are pure Nordics, one only needs to look at genetic studies on Southern Europeans. The Portuguese, who have the highest amounts of non-Caucasoid ancestry amongst Europeans at 1.65% Sub-Saharan, have four times less non-white blood than Afrikaners. If the Portuguese are Mulattoes, then what does that make Afrikaners? Maybe the collapse of Apartheid was due to the 6% non-white blood in Afrikaners? Why is it the race conscious Afrikaners have more non-white blood than than Southern Europeans who can’t help but sleep with every non-white they see? Before Arthur Kemp worries about non-white blood in Southern Europeans, he should worry about his own coloured ancestry first. Fact is Apartheid was about ensuring white minority rule in South Africa, not about racial purity. The very fact the Apartheid government granted white status to those with known non-white ancestry, shows they weren’t concerned with absolute purity of blood. Hendrik and Betsy Verwoerd. Betsy Verwoerd was rumoured to have non-White ancestry, as is not uncommon amongst “white” Afrikaners.

Read original article here…

A pure bred as concept, belief and reality requires a masterful and meticulous inhumane plan. At this stage in human development the pure bred, a rarity, is truly an exception than a reality. History as a master teacher reveals that a quest for a pure bred is shackled to the marrow and bone to exclusivity and gross human violations stretching back to the beginning of recorded history. The pure bred should not only read genetic purity but also a quest for religious, economic, political, cultural and social homogeneity, in other words exclusivity in all spheres of life.

Show me a pure bred and surely a human being would be depicted, a bastard to be more precise. In South Africa this bastard is called coloured, a true misconception. If my skin were not black then it would be coloured for I am born of the fusion of many black nations or tribes, alas my genetics is mixed. If my skin were not white then it would be coloured for I am born of the fusion of many white nations or clans, alas my genetics is mixed. If my skin were not white, black or even coloured then it would be human for I am born of the fusion of many nations, tribes or clans.

The bastard, the coloured, the mix-breed, the mulatto or by any name exist is the human pure bred, Aryan. Their blood is richly mixed, the genes are bountiful and blessed, and the breeding follows a good strong line of a mixed culture. A culture, bountiful and blessed with the breeding of a richly mixed blood, genes, religion, tradition and social conventions following the sacred path of nature and life. I am coloured, the original Aryan.

Transcending the shackles, chains and burdens of separation mentality, repressive racial thought prevalent in South Africa and the world, the concept of beyond identity fosters values of uniformity between people that finds discourse and dissent against any form of exclusion. Our ethos is never to racially exclude and discriminate on the grounds of ethnicity, nationality, language, religion, philosophy and heritage as we choose rather to promote the human race as hate or retribution dressed in whatever remain hate and retribution. If we don’t learn from our ancestors, how can we expect to foster any change in the world. As the great man Mahatma Gandhi said ‘You must be the change you wish to see in the world’

The ideals of Beyond Identity are compounded by,

• People of color are the future.
• Ignorance is not an excuse, it is nothing but lazy thinking.
• Education is the key to change, a better world for everyone.
• It is not necessary to have mix-blood pumping in your veins to be human, but a soul that is filled with humanity.
• Mix-blood is not a guarantee to be part of a Beyond Identity Ethos, as being a human is a way of living in peace and love.
• Ubuntu and Masakhane now and forever for all people of color.
• The naissance, a new way of thinking, living and being.
• I am a part of you, as you are a part of me.

In the words of Guy Lundy, ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Republic of South Africa and to the interesting people, places and idiosyncrasies for which it stands, one nation under several religions, languages and cultures, yet indivisible with freedom, basic needs and progress for all.’

>> Ross Rayners <<