The nefarious consequences of race and racism on Athol Fugard s characters [624927]

The nefarious consequences of race and racism on Athol Fugard ’s characters
II.1.1.Apartheid ’s politics and legislation
II.1.2. The power of corruption and betrayal
II.1.3. Otherness, dehumanization and the search for identity
II.1.4. Daydreaming: a way to escape reality
II.1.5. Fighting for survival

More than half of his career, Fugard writes during a censorship regime, a regime which was
imposed by the system that influenced the lives of all South Africans for approximately five
decades, from 1948 till the year 1994. This playwright regards theatre as a valuable/sacred space
where reality and dreams merge as one. With every chance he has got, Athol Fugard asserts that
he writes about people and situations, not especially about Apartheid (Zach 2008, 9 –11).
Nonetheless, this regime is what influences the most the lives of his characters and his own life.

Introduction
Athol Fugard is one of those writers whose main goal was to oppose the system during the
period of Apartheid, but in a peaceful manner, from within. With the help of his characters and
his plays, Athol attempted and some may even say succeeded in becoming the voice of a
discriminated race; he managed to defy the system by means of resistance from within and
through the voices of his characters. With the help of his writings, Fugard captures the South
Africans ’ lives and creates memorable spaces in which his characters (re)define and (re)discover
themselves.

II.1.1.Apartheid ’s politics and legislation ( blood knot, sizwe banzi, statements, the island)
Apartheid ’s legislation had absolute power over the lives of every White, African, Coloured and
Indian. The life of every human being was already established according to the racial group to
which everyone belonged. The legislation that implemented a system like Apartheid wouldn ’t
have been so easily accepted if it hadn ’t been for the perfect context offered by South Africa
based on racial segregation and privileged position of the white race.

Concepts such as “colonialism ”, “oppression ” and “racism ” and the way that they influence the
life, the actions and the characters ’ experiences and feelings offer us a better understanding of
the background of the plays. Faced with laws that have as main purpose dehumanisation,
Fugard ’s character is doomed to lose his identity or to live and function as half paralyzed by the
invisibility that is forced upon him.
Some of Fugard ’s plays are seen as political plays by many critics and readers as well. While
some of them include clear social conditions that affect the lives of his characters ( Statements
after an Arrest under the Immorality Act , Blood Knot , Sizwe Banzi is Dead ), others, such as
People are living here or Hello and Goodbye , have no political elements. The word Apartheid is
not included in his plays, but its laws are visibly invoked and its effects ale clearly present in
some of his plays. Fuga rd’s plays are about people, about the person that lives in the same world
as ours, about the blacks, the colourds or the poor whites, about the people forced to silence.
Fugard ’s writing functions as a witness that South Africa ’s loss of identity and dignity so much
needed.
One of Fugard ’s most famous plays is Blood Knot which was first performed at the Rehearsal
Room, Dorkay House, Johannesburg in 1961 with the original title The Blood Knot. The action
of the play takes place in a shack in Korsten, a black ghetto outside Port Elizabeth. The play is
about two brothers who live together after spending a few years apart. They are extremely
different from each other: Morris is the one that has whiter skin and the one that can read and
write, he is the one that has plans for the future while Zachariah is the one who has a very dark
skin, has no education and no knowledge on how to properly behave, but still he is the one who
goes to work and earns money in order to accomplish Morris ’ dream of having a farm together.
In order for Morris to escape the feeling of regret and guilt about his past, he decided to leave the
past behind and establish new goals for their future. The two brothers survive each day in a dark
reality with the aim of becoming landowners; but what they cannot accept is the fact that their
goal is unreal and impossible to accomplish due the Apartheid legislation. The Natives ’ Land
Act of 1913 and the Native trust and Land Act of 1936 prohibited the purchase of land by the
non-whites outside the stipulated reserves. Let us not forget that the non-whites represented the
majority of the population, while the white population, approximately 20 per cent of the
population had access to more than 80 per cent of South Africa ’s land.

Zachariah cannot cope with the present as he does not have the same dream as his brother so
he tries to return to the past and feel again the pleasures of ife. In order to still keep his brother
on the same track as his, Morris suggests a pen-pal, who turns out to be white. This is the
moment when the audience and the reader realize that the place to which they belong is what
makes them who they are. Even if one has lighter skin and the other one darker, they are both
blacks in the eyes of Apartheid.
To have a connection with a white woman during Apartheid is a luxury that they cannot
afford. The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1949) and the Immorality Act (1950) prohibited
Whites from marrying or having sexual relations with people of another racial group. Everything
that concerns Ethel from the moment they find out that she is white frightens Morris: “they don ’t
like these games with their whiteness ” (Fugard 2004, 92), but not Zach who now finds
everything more appealing: “And this white woman has written to me, a hot-not, a swartg. This
white woman thinks I ’m a white man. That I like. ” (Fugard 2004: 77). According to the
definition provided by Fugard himself in the accompanying Glossary, “hot-not ” is a “Corrupt
form of ‘Hottentot ’, term formerly used by San tribes people, now abusi ve” (Fugard 2004: 253)
and “Swartgat ” is an “abusive name for black South African, literally ‘black-arse ’ (Fugard
2004:255). When Ethel announces her possible future visit, Zach suggests to Morris that he
should take advantage of his light-skin and pretend to be her pen-pal. They spend all their farm
savings in order to buy a suit and everything that a real white man needs.
There is strong evidence in the play that this would not be Morris ’ first attempt “to pass ” for
white. At first, Morris cannot accept Zach ’s idea, but he finally stops fighting back maybe
pushed forward by a kind of temptation to try yet another time to pass for white. In order for his
“passing ” to be real and complete he must also be accepted by the society as a white man and in
order to accomplish this he has to let go of his true identity and his dream that exposes him as
being part of the non-white world. He knows that the clothes are not enough to become white
even if they live in a society in which there is a strong sense of ambiguity when it comes to
establishing the colour of the skin. In the Population Registration Act of 1950, “a white person
means a person who in appearance obviously is, or who is generally accepted as a white person,
but does not include a person who, although in appearance obviously a white person, is generally
accepted as a coloured person ”

(https://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/DC/leg19500707.028.020.030/leg19500707.028.
020.030.pdf ). (more about his whiteness on pag 64 alan shelley).
Sizwe Bansi is Dead is a play that was created due to the collaboration between Athol Fugard,
John Kani and Winston Ntshona. Together they managed to write a tragedy about survival in a
black world with white laws. The main character, Sizwe Banzi, wants to work in Port Elizabeth
in order to help and feed his family. This play was written in a period of time when many began
to question who they were as well as their previously held identities and values, a period when
they had to decide whether they would choose to escape reality through illusory goals like
Morris and Zach or through the hard decision to accept the reality and try to fight the system
with its own tools like Sizwe. The social context of the play is thus as important as the action of
the play itself. The system that was already based on segregation and the inferiority of the non-
white races wanted go even further and implemented the pass laws which required for all non-
whites to carry documents at all time that stated if they were authorized in certain restricted areas
such as Port Elizabeth. Africans often found themselves in the position of having to disregard
these pass laws even though that meant constant threat of harassment and arrests. They had to
violate these laws because they had families to support and take care of and sometimes this
meant having to give up their freedom in order to try to survive the reality forced upon them by a
system such as Apartheid.
The play begins with a monologue offered to us by Styles, a photographer who returns to his
past in order to present the readers and the audience an episode from when he was a worker at a
car factory and they were expecting a visit from Henry Ford the Second. This episode is of great
importance and it was not included in the play without having a deep meaning. His experience
in the car factory is a universal matter; it is not limited to South Africa. It talks about the
position of the individual, the degradation and dehumanization of the individual in all
industrialized economies. Styles is one of the few people of that period who finds the courage to
escape this capitalist system and become his own boss while standing on his own two feet by
himself. He starts his own photography studio and thus he finds a way to make a difference for
himself and escape the abuse he had to endure while working in the car factory. His monologue
is interrupted when Sizwe Banzi enters his studio and asks for a photograph that he wants to
send to his wife. Here the action is furthermore interrupted as Sizwe Banzi ’s photograph comes
to life and starts to dictate the letter to his wife. The action moves one more time in the pass and

this time into Buntu ’s house in New Brighton in order to present us the events that led to the
crucial moment from Sizwe Banzi ’s life when he decides to change his identity and become
Robert Zwelinzma. Buntu tries to present and explain Sizwe the harsh reality that he should
accept. He must return home because he does not have the right stamps in his passbook in order
to attempt to remain in Port Elizabeth and work here. For Port Elizabeth and for the authorities,
Sizwe Banzi does not exist without the necessary permit and thus he cannot stay and work here.
A fortunate or less fortunate situation, depending on how the reader or the audience choose to
perceive it, offers Sizwe Banzi a unique opportunity to remain and work in Port Elizabeth, but
with the price of burying his true identity. After what it is supposed to be Sizwe Banzi ’s last
night in Port Elizabeth, Buntu and Sizwe come across a dead body that has on himself his
passbook with all the necessary stamps. In this particular moment, Sizwe is faced with what
seems to be his most difficult decision ever. He has to choose between staying and losing his
real name on the one side and leaving Port Elizabeth and going back to his family without any
hope for survival on the other side. Buntu convinces Banzi to take advantage of this opportunity
as he makes him understand that his true identity is not shaped according to a passbook and a
number written on it. He is a black man that tries to stay alive in a world controlled by white
laws. When it was first implemented, the passbook was described as an important document for
the non-whites as it offered them the opportunity to pass into the world of the white population:
“They said: Book of Life! Your friend! You ’ll never get lost! They told us lies ” (Fugard 2000,
181). The passbook that was forced upon them represents the life of the black man written down
on a piece of paper, it came to represent an extension of the body, of the personality; it follows
the person to school, to church, to work and even to hospital when it is time to die, “it talks ”
(Fugard 2000, 180).
Because of his position as a black person he realizes that these laws are against him so he
understands that the only way to escape them is to make use of them; he tries to trick the system
with its own tools.
Statements after an Arrest under the Immorality Act is a play that tries and succeeds in
convincing its audience and its readers of Apartheid ’s power over the lives of non-whites.
Apartheid did not only try to control the non-white human being at work, at school, at
church, but also tried to control his soul, his feelings, telling him what he can or cannot do. The
play presents the effects of one of Apartheid ’s laws, The Immorality Act, which prohibited

sexual relations and marriage between people of two different races. This law is based on the
belief that the white race is superior to other races present in South Africa and thus it should keep
its pureness by not being mixed with other races .
Statements after an Arrest under the Immorality Act has never been considered one of
Fugard;s best plays and it was not received without criticism. The main reason for this is the
topic itself of the play, The Immorality Act, a law that has meaning only between the borders of
South Africa. For the people outside of Africa this law is meaningless, without any value and
understanding. A lot of critics consider that this topic is not universal enough :
“A non-South African audience is more likely to understand the racial segregation and raci sm
depicted in Sizwe Banzi or the incarceration of political dissidents in The Island than it is in the
South Africa Immorality Act, the legal intervention that makes coital rela tions across race lines a
crime, which is at issue in Statements . Racism and repression are known the world over. The
Immorality Act is an almost uniquely South African invention. ” (Wertheim 2000: 70).

To summarize it, the play frames the love story between Frieda Joubert, a forty-two-year-
old white unmarried librarian, and Errol Philander, a thirty-six-year-old black married principal
of the school in Bontrug. The play begins with an intimate moment between the two characters
who are naked on the floor of the library. They seem comfortable to each other, they talk about
their lives and feelings, which makes the reader and the audience understand that this is not a
one-time thing; they know each other and because of their behaviour the reader understands that
this has happened before. What they have is more than an intercourse; they got to know each
other, to listen and to understand each other. Throughout the entire play the characters are
referred to by Fugard as Man and Woman . By not using their names Fugard may want to suggest
that Frieda can represent any white woman from South Africa and Errol any black man. They are
not unique, different and their actions do not have any other consequences than the ones dictated
by the law. In this part of the play the darkness is their friend, their secret companion, the one
that offers them the intimacy they so much seek out. This moment is interrupted by the
interference of the light that is brought from the outside world. Detective Sergeant J. du Preez is
the representative of the authority that brings with him torches and flashlights that destroy the
union between the two characters. Before the interference, there was love, not the purest kind of
love, because in the end we are presented with an adulterous relationship, but still, there were
real feelings between two people that managed to find something in common in a society which

prohibited any kind of relationship between them. When the flashlights arrive so does the cruel
reality from outside, the exposure, the destruction of everything that was beautiful between them
and made visible the immorality, the actions of two selfish people who did not consider Errol ’s
family ’s feelings and the society ’s concern about their relationship. Harold Habson, in an article
written in Sunday Times , considers that this particular aspect is the beauty of the play:

“It is an implicit assumption throughout the play that there is something beaut iful in the idea of a
white woman disrupting a coloured home, and either deceiving a coloured wife, or infl icting on
her pain and anguish. […] Thus Errol’ s wife, never being seen, is too easily forgotten. Yet she is
vital to the way in which the intrigue between her husband and the white woman should be
regarded. The play is a protest against an immoral Act; but it is itself immoral. ” (Gray 1991: 44).

The reason that led to their meeting at the back door of the library is Errol ’s inability to
become a subscriber of the library due to the Apartheid laws. Because he does not have legal
entry to the library and because he is in search of answers that he knows that he can only find in
books, he finds a way to gain access to the knowledge offered by the books through the back
door. This door offered him access to the information that he needed, but it also offered him
access to Frieda ’s heart.
Frieda and Errol are presented to the readers and to the audience as two intellectuals who
seem to have a lot in common, but whose relationship is not accepted by the society, not only
rejected, but also considered immoral and illegal. Their description offered by Detective
Sergeant J. du Preez and his report includes the only aspects which matter in the eyes of
Aparteid: “Frieda Joubert. Ten, Conradie Street. European. Errol Philander. Bontrug Location.
Coloured. Charged: Immorality Act ” (Fugard 2000: 91). In the eyes of Apartheid the racial
clasification is the one that matters the most. The six photos taken by the authorities are more
than enough to destroy the world created by the two lovers, to expose them as frightened,
humiliated and grotesque. Errol is no longer the intellectual who is in search of answers related
to the evolution of human species, but now he becomes “the servile, cringing ‘Coloured ’”
(Fugard 2000: 96). Albert Wertheim, in The Dramatic Art of Athol Fugard , concludes that
Errol ’s psychic and personality suffer some changes: “Errol is, moreover, essentially
emasculated, losing his manhood, sophistication, and virility; and reduced to performing an
archetypal racial role. ”(2000: 78).

II.1.2. Power of the State: The power of corruption and betrayal a lesson from aloes
The power of the state present in Fugard ’s plays :
Ethel ’s brother ’s boots, Ethel ’s whiteness blood knot
Detective-sergeant J du Preez, the invading force in statements
The play Blood Knot , as Walder states in the introduction to Port Elizabeth Plays, “explores
the South Africa obsession with race, and the use of it to define relations of power and
dependence ” (2004, 15). Blood Knot exposes the power of the State, the way in which the lives
of his characters are controlled from the moment they were born. The State decides where they
live, where they work, whether they can own land, it also influences the type of relationship they
should have or not have with white women, their own brotherhood is controlled by the power of
the State. Power is everywhere around us and man cannot escape the complex relations of power
that constitute the society. Antonio Gramsci, who is considered one of the most important
Marxist thinkers of the 20th century, understands power as a result of unity and coherence and
almost all this theory is based on the belief that in the area of politics there are rulers and there
are ruled, there are leaders and there are led (Gramsci, 1999: 347). Gramsci is known for
introducing the concept cultural hegemony based on his belief that people do not control ideas,
ideas control people; in other words, people do not wield power, power wields people. South
Africa is the perfect setting for a discussion on power and domination. Whites in South Africa
represented approximately twenty per cent of its population, while blacks and coloured were
almost eighty per cent. How can a population who outnumbers any military force and all the
white people in this country be dominated and discriminated? South Africa is not only an
example of repressive power, but it is also a clear example of a normalizing power.
Michel Foucault ’s research is based on understanding the way man is being converted into a
subject through power relations. According to Foucault, every culture is defined and shaped by
power. Furthermore, Foucault argues that there are two kinds of power; one that is applied by the
institutions of the country (police, church, court) and the other one which is enforced through
discourse. Thus, discourse creates power in the form of knowledge which, in its turn, creates
identity. When one thinks of power he/she tends to think of violence, either mental or physical.
Sovereign power is the most visible form of power, which has an impact and people tend to rebel
against this kind of power. In particular, the lives of the South Africans were shaped by

sovereign power. They were forced to do what they did not want to do: to leave their homes and
move into segregated areas, to accept humiliation and abusive language, in other words – to
accept their condition as an inferior race. There was a visible case of sovereign power in South
Africa; nonetheless, the disciplinary power is not missing from this scenario. Based on
Foucault ’s belief that disciplinary power is everywhere, there is clear evidence that Fugard ’s
characters were influenced by society and by what society wanted them to believe to be normal
and right. Society ’s power that shaped their ambitions, desires, and ideas managed to penetrate
the walls of Fugard ’s characters ’ space.
A Lesson from Aloes is one of Fugard ’s plays that is centred on the topic of power; a clear
example of both sovereign and disciplinary power and its effects on the society. Set in 1963 in
South Africa, it is a play that Fugard began writing in the early 1960 ’s, but which was finished in
1978, when it was also first staged in Johannesburg. The play was finished after a period of crisis
for Athol Fugard as a writer and it explores the effects of power and betrayal on the lives of three
characters. It is a play that received appreciation from behalf on the public and the critics as it
has won the New York Drama Critics ’ Circle Award as the best play of the 1980-81 season on
Broadway. Robert Greig described it in his first review as “[…] a major work. It’ s poetic
tragedy, and the climax is as harrowing a piece of theatre as any seen in Johannesburg for many
a long day ” (Athol Fugard edited by Stephen Gray 1982: 101) and sustains his admiration for the
play in his second review when he calls it “a remarkable work, the kind of play that, once over,
begins living and growing within you ”. (Athol Fugard edited by Stephen Gray 1982: 103)
The two-act play can also be interpreted as focusing on two relationships; the first one is
between two friends that have different skin colour and the second one is the relationship
between a husband and a wife. Both of these bonds are shaped and influenced by the
power of Apartheid to poison them. The first act presents the white couple, Piet and
Gladys, in their house in Port Elizabeth doing their daily activities while preparing for a
last supper with Steve Daniels, a coloured man, and his family before they live South
Africa on an exit-only visa to England. In this first act we find out crucial information
about Piet ’s previous life and his epiphany. He was forced to give up farming because of
the drought and be became a bus driver until his encounter with Steve. This event in his
life changed his perspective over life in general and started to understand the black
people ’s condition in South Africa and the huge flaws of the Apartheid system and its

legislation were at last visible to him. “It had nothing to do with me. Politics!…[ He smiles]
until I drove my empty bus through that crowd walking to work. Hell, Gladys, it was a sight!
Men, women, even school children, walking and laughing and full of defiance. Bitter and hard as
I was inside, I felt emotions. […] So at I stopped and got ou t. I got a little nervous at first with
all of them watching me as I walked over. I was the only white there. […] The next thing I knew
is they were cheering and laughing and slapping me on the back and making a place for me in the
front row. [ He pause s.] I don ’t know how to describe it, Gladys … the effect that had on me. It
was like rain after a long drought. Being welcomed by those people was the most mov ing thing
that has ever happened to me. Feelings about life and people, which I thought had wi thered away
like everything on the farm, were alive again. ” (Fugard, 2000: 241-242)

That particular event in his life made his understand that he can become an active
individual and not remain a passive one as the society demanded from the white population. He
became the white individual that decided to react in the face of this injustice, just as Athol
Fugard decided to try and make a difference through his words and plays. At the beginning of the
first act, Piet tries to identify and name one of his specimens of aloes as he understands and
accepts the unique features of every one of them. This perspective of his is put in opposition with
the mentality of the system that controls South Africa. Apartheid classifies every individual
according to the colour of their skin and to their race; it does not take into account every
individual ’s unique characteristics as Piet does with his aloes.
Gladys and Piet form a family of two that are presented as having very little in common.
Gladys, a wife of English Stock, is a person who wants to protect herself from everything that
she perceives as being a threaten, she wants to feel safe and for this main reason she uses
protective clothing and sunglasses in order not to be exposed to the outside world and to the
cruel reality of South Africa. Her motionless and silent personality is opposite to Piet ’s, who
walks bare-chested and is very active. She has no intention of reacting to the South Africa ’s
social injustice; she only cares about her own personal world. Gladys feels helpless in front of
the unknown, of the aloes and what they represent and, moreover, she feels vulnerable when she
has to be in contact with the black skin: “I’m going to be honest with you. They frightened me.
Yes, thorns and bitterness? I ’m afraid there ’s more than that to them. They ’re turgid with
violence, like everything else in this country. And they are trying to pass it on to me ” (Fugard,
2000: 230). Gladys is a crucial character in the play. She is the proof that the power of the

system not only affects the black and the coloured people of South Africa, but also the whit e
ones. She is the one that makes the reader and the audience understand that psychological
wounds are deeper and some of them may never heal, unlike the physical ones. Gladys had a
very close connection with her diary and when it was confiscated by the Security Branch during
a raid she was left with no purpose, no hope, no perspective for the future. The system entered
her private world, it took something that was part of her, it took away her deepest thoughts and
she felt as if she was raped.
The focus in the second act moves from the relationship of the couple to a relationship of
friendship between a man with white skin and a man with a black one. As the action moves
forward, the audience and the reader understand that the colour on the skin is actually the only
main difference between the two male characters. Piet and Steve share the same beliefs, ideas,
values, they are both Afrikaans speakers and they both respect and love their native land.

II.1.3. Otherness, dehumanization and the search for identity
Alan shelley p 62
Identity alan shelley p 134
Smedley, 1998; Steyn, 2001).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/682047?read-
now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3Ac0433472044e6c7ae16d201a634f0b91&seq=3#page_scan_tab_c
ontents race and the construction of human identity

The identity of the black man represented the main topic for many of Fugard ’s plays, but one
of the most important ones is Sizwe Bansi is Dead. For this play Fugard had John Kani and
Winston Ntshona as collaborators and together they managed to write a tragedy about survival in
a black world with white laws. The main character, Sizwe Banzi, wants to work in Port Elizabeth
in order to help and feed his family. He is left with no other choice but to steal a dead man ’s
identity:

When the white man looked at you at the Labour Bureau what did he see? A man with
dignity or a bloody passbook with an N.I. number? Isn ’t that a ghost? When the white

man sees you walk down the street and calls out, ‘Hey, John! Come here ’… to you,
Sizwe Banzi … isn’ t that a ghost? Or when his little child calls you ‘Boy’ … you a man,
circumcised, with a wife and four children … isn’ t that a ghost? Stop fooling yourself.
All I ’m saying is be a real ghost, if that is what they want, what they ’ve turned us into.
Spook them into hell, man! (Fugard 2000, 185; ellipses in the original)

Both colonialism and post colonialism offer important perspectives for the purpose of this
paper. South Africa is a country that, even though it has won its independence, its colonial
lifestyle was still kept and this makes one wonder: Is South Africa a colonial or a postcolonial
country? And moreover: Is Athol Fugard a colonial or a postcolonial playwright?
The meaning of otherness in South Africa is offered by colonialism. Frantz Fanon ’s main
goal in Black Skin, White Masks is to investigate the psychology of colonialism. In his opinion,
“European civilization and its best representatives are responsible for colonial racism ” (2008,
65—67). People become aware of the ugly truth: whiteness represents the symbol of purity and
justice while blackness represents ugliness and sin. The image of South Africa is not defined by
terms such as equality and human rights. The black man or the coloured man represents the other
in a society in which the centre is occupied by the white man. The centre is occupied by the one ,
he has the power; he is the colonizer, the one that controls every aspect and detail from the lives
of the others. Outside of the centre there is the marginalized area, the townships which are
occupied by the Other. The Other has no identity, he cannot find a place for himself, he is the
one that no longer knows who he is.
Fanon argues that there is a borderline between the Self and the Other which was established
from the very first moment of colonization and this caused a mental block against each other ’s
worlds (2008: 32). There were connections and communication between the two worlds. Due to
the physical communication a new race was born, the Coloured, which acted as a bond between
the two existing worlds. The problem of identity in South Africa is even more problematic when
it comes to the one of the Coloured people. Where does the identity of the Other stop and where
does the identity of the One begin? What is their position in society? Are they allowed to pretend
that they are white in order to benefit from the white privileges or should they embrace their
status as outcasts?

Even though Morris is not identified as a Coloured in the play, the fact that he can pass for a
white person is more than enough to understand his position in the South African society:

“It’s happened, man. And I swear, I no longer wanted it. That ’s why I came back.
Because… because… I’ll tell you the whole truth now… because I did try it! It didn’ t
seem a sin. If a man was born with a chance at changing why not take it? I thought…
thinking of worms lying warm in the silk, to come out one day with wings and things!
Why not a man? ” (Fugard 2004, 106; ellipsis in the original).

His attempts and his failure are the consequence of the One – Other dichotomy. The
Coloureds were one of the main results of hybridization. Due to the birth of a new race, the
Coloureds, the white race had an even higher position on the ladder of hierarchy than the black
race. The Coloureds represented a new group of people who could be oppressed and
discriminated. At first, they were regarded as hybrids who managed to consolidate the status of
the white race, but, after a while, the white race started to feel threatened by them. The Blacks
and the Coloureds had to be segregated in order to preserve the purity of the white race;
segregation was the perfect weapon against hybridity and against the two races that threatened
the privileged position of the white race.
Through imaginary games and role-playing the two brothers manage to discover and
understand their identities. The imaginary car ride is the moment when they rediscover the blood
knot between them; they do that by returning to their childhood. A more intense role-play is the
one where Morris performs the role of whiteness while Zach the one of blackness: “Their games
are always deeply rooted in an external reality; their wakeful, everyday life is dominated by
dreams of escape. They have thoroughly learned the black and white roles by observing and
playing them in the outer world – Morrie by passing, Zach by kowtowing to his boss ”
(Vandenbroucke 1985, 40). The violence at the heart of this role-play is Fugard ’s way of
suggesting his beliefs about what is going to happen next in this society controlled by the
apartheid laws: “I knew in my bones that South Africa was heading for violence, and that the
violence was going to come from the oppressed, as it has always done. We just have to look at
world history. Zachariah, in his assumption of power, inevitably discovers his potential for
violence. It can ’t be avoided ” (Zach 2008, 10).

Aimé Césaire claims that this sort of violence in the behaviour of the colonized is the main
consequence of colonialism. In the paper Discourse on Colonialism , he accuses the colonizer of
“decivilizing the colonized ” and “brutalizing him in the true sense of the word, to awaken him to
buried instincts of violence, race hatred and moral relativism ” (Césaire, 1972: 2). Césaire
believes that, unlike many people ’s opinion, colonization should not be seen as a way to
establish a connection between civilizations, but a clear way to diminish humans ’ rights. In his
paper he emphasizes the idea that nobody colonizes inoffensively; the colonizer treats with
cruelty and harms the colonized and in the process of doing so the image of the colonizer is also
compromised. Zachariah is the product of colonialism; he is the result of the colonizer ’s actions
and behaviour:

“Morris: Weren ’t you that? The simple, trustworthy type of John-boy. Weren ’t you
that?
Zachariah: I ’ve changed.
Morris: Who gave you that right?
Zachariah: I took it! ” (Fugard, 2004: 121).
Look at someone ’s friends and someone ’s space and you will learn something about that person.
In his paper “Introduction: Who needs Identity? ”, Stuart Hall brings forward the poststructuralist
perspective on the understanding of identity and he advocates that identity should be perceived
as “a construction, a process never completed- always ‘in process ’” (Hall 2000, 2) or as being
“never unified and, in late modern times, increasingly fragmented and fractured ” (Hall 2000, 3).
This is what this paper intends to do: to look at South Africa, to observe the place, to look at
Apartheid, to look at its legislation and to understand Fugard ’s characters and their identities
which were shaped by the flux, the changes and the transformations suffered by South Africa
during Apartheid. In order for the South African to understand his identity he must not return to
his roots but he must come to terms with his routes (Hall 2000, 3). He must accept his position as
the subject trapped inside a system that is actually a legacy of colonialism.
For the oppressor, the insignificant and marginalized subjects such as Morris, Zachariah, Sizwe
of Boesman do not exist as human beings. They do not have identities that matter for the State
and because of this invisibility that is forced upon themselves; they become trapped in a state of
subjugation where even they cannot identify anymore their human value in themselves.

II.1.4. Daydreaming: a way to escape reality
Pag 58 Alan Shelley
In order to escape the reality that surrounds them, Fugard ’s characters start dreaming about a
better life, a better future. While it is quite difficult to imagine a better life in the 1960 ’s, Morrie
manages to do it: “The future. […] The farm, Zach! Remember, man? The things we ’re going to
do. Picture it! Picking our own fruit… Chopping the firewood trees… and a cow… and a
horse… and little chickens. Isn’ t that exciting? ” (Fugard 2004, 59; ellipsis in the original), in the
post-apartheid period it seems to be quite normal to expect a change for the better for the South
African society. The play Valley Song is about the changes that are anticipated to come with the
end of apartheid, it is about the gap between generations, about dreaming and about hope. Fugard
himself said that he sees it as “probably my most successful attempt at balancing the personal
and the political in its examination of the inevitability of change, of loss and renewal ” (2004,
viii).

II.1.5. Fighting for survival

In spite of the institutionalised and legal racism with which Fugard ’s characters are confronted
they manage to survive and with the help of their human abilities they choose to stand against the
limits imposed by this type of racism. In his book, Russel Vandenbroucke mentions the
important detail that “survival ” is one of Fugard ’s favourite words used as an inspiration in the
creation of more than one character. These characters choose to survive through different ways:
they escape reality through daydreaming or they raise their voice so loud as to be heard even if
they are behind the great walls of a prison ( The Island).
Kommentar [OM1]: This sentence
should be broken up as now it is a very
strange structure