Between the movie and two
books, I got pretty caught up in the story of Ruth and Seretse Khama.
It was interesting to
view the story through three different pairs of eyes. Generally it didn't make
a lot of difference. I believe Michael Dutfield gave more information on the
history of the Bamangwato tribe, while Susan Williams gave a better sense of
how the rest of the world was viewing the conflict, and the general African
presence in London.
The London information
was interesting, not only because it gave the impression of a diverse and vital
community that I had never heard of, but also because as some of those
participants went on to lead other countries on the continent, it becomes not
just a story of one city at one time but many countries over many years. That
also showed Seretse Khama to be uniquely forward thinking in his efforts to
train future leaders and establish stable succession processes.
There was one other way
the two authors diverged, and that was on the reason for British interference.
Some months have gone by now, so my memory may be fuzzy, but for all three
sources it was a question of South Africa's relationship with Great Britain, already a fraught one.
If I recall correctly,
the film just focused on stability, Dutfield mentioned concerns that losing
British influence over South Africa would make their racism worse, while Williams
focused on British concerns about South African uranium deposits.
Just for background,
though minority rule had been the case in South Africa for many years, and was becoming further
codified all through the 40s, Apartheid became official in 1948. That is also
the year in which Ruth and Seretse married.
Racism has such a long
history of fearing the unions of white women and Black men that it should not
be at all surprising that South Africa had a problem with it, but that it
should be the case in the royal marriage of a country just above them and
sharing borders felt like a threat; something that could give their own
residents ideas.
The South African
factions that would have been happy to completely cast aside the British
relationship were gaining popularity. Nationalism and racism have always had a
natural affinity anyway.
To Dutfield's credit, I
am sure that when any South African influence was admitted, the government
official doing the admitting would be more likely to credit the desire to help
the people of color in South Africa than fears of price gouging on uranium or
fears of communists getting their hands on South African uranium. (To be fair,
the South African nationalists tended to hate communists also.)
I can't help but think it
was more about the uranium. It's hard to demonstrate that their careful
treatment of South Africa did much to ameliorate Apartheid anyway.
Regardless, Britain didn't like admitting any South African
influence on the British government's opposition, first to the marriage of Ruth
and Seretse, and then to Seretse taking his place as chief and king.
Interfering with the sovereignty of one country at the behest of a third
country for racist reasons is not a good look for any government.
I can sympathize with
worrying about the long-term effects of damaging diplomatic ties with a
country. If there were true worries about Apartheid, and worrying that taking a
stand would do more harm than good, I can totally sympathize with that. I'm not
denying that the decisions of various government officials didn't make a
certain sense.
What angered me (and led
to this post's title) was the utter indignation that so many of these officials
demonstrated. How dare these two single people who are in love get married? How
dare a legitimate ruler want to take his throne? We told them not to!
That's something that
comes up again and again with women and with people of color -- with anyone
lower on the power structure -- how dare they be so insolent? Where is their
gratitude?
How dare they?
No comments:
Post a Comment