Report on Professor Xolela Mangcu’s Critique of ANC President Albert Luthuli’s Admission of Submission to White Civilization

During his lecture, Professor Xolela Mangcu of Gergetown University in the United States delivered a biting critique of former African National Congress (ANC) president Albert Luthuli, recounting a moment where Luthuli openly admitted his subjugation to white civilization. As Mangcu quoted Luthuli, he laughed, highlighting the irony and discomfort in the admission. The moment served as a powerful critique of the ANC’s approach to race relations during that period, particularly its willingness to seek approval from white South Africans.

Mangcu focused on a statement made by Luthuli in 1956, during a court appearance where Luthuli addressed a magistrate. Luthuli, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and one of the most revered leaders of the ANC, expressed his vision for a multiracial South Africa. However, in doing so, he revealed an unsettling truth about the ANC’s leadership’s relationship with white civilization. Quoting Luthuli, Mangcu noted that Luthuli said, “Africans cannot manage without the whites in South Africa. We have accepted your civilization, and we like it. We are absorbing it as far as we can.”

Mangcu’s laughter at this quote underscored the submissive tone of Luthuli’s statement, which seemed to affirm the superiority of white civilization and suggest that Africans needed white approval and guidance to progress. Mangcu pointed out the incongruity of such a statement coming from a leader of a liberation movement. Rather than a call for independence and self-determination, Luthuli’s words appeared to reflect a dependence on white South Africans and an acceptance of their terms for coexistence.

Mangcu’s critique emphasized the broader implications of Luthuli’s statement. By acknowledging that Africans were absorbing white civilization and asking to be accepted by white society, Luthuli was implicitly reinforcing the racial hierarchy that the apartheid system sought to uphold. Mangcu argued that this was a profound contradiction within the ANC’s political vision at the time. While advocating for multiracialism and non-racialism, the party’s leadership often conceded to the very structures they sought to dismantle.

Luthuli’s stance, according to Mangcu, was emblematic of the ANC’s more liberal and conciliatory approach to race relations during the mid-20th century. This approach, which sought compromise with white South Africans and emphasized gradual integration, was in stark contrast to the more radical ideologies espoused by figures like Robert Sobukwe of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). While Sobukwe and the PAC rejected the notion of relying on white approval and promoted African self-determination, Luthuli’s words reflected a dependency on white South Africa to shape the future of the country.

Mangcu highlighted how this mindset within the ANC paved the way for a politics of appeasement that sought to negotiate within the confines of white-dominated structures. He argued that Luthuli’s statement, rather than asserting the equality and independence of Africans, reinforced the power dynamics that privileged white civilization over African identity. Mangcu found this attitude problematic, particularly in the context of a liberation movement that was supposed to empower Africans to reclaim their dignity and rights.

The laughter with which Mangcu delivered this critique signaled both disbelief and frustration at the willingness of the ANC leadership to adopt such a subservient stance. He noted that this was part of the broader liberal multiracialism that dominated the ANC’s politics at the time—a belief that peaceful coexistence and gradual integration into white society would eventually lead to equality. Mangcu suggested that this approach ultimately weakened the ANC’s ability to challenge systemic racism effectively, as it relied too heavily on white approval rather than fostering true African empowerment.

In contrast to Luthuli’s position, Mangcu lauded figures like Sobukwe, who firmly rejected the idea of seeking acceptance from white South Africa. Sobukwe’s radical vision of non-racialism, which called for the dismantling of racial categories altogether, was rooted in a belief in African self-sufficiency and pride. Unlike Luthuli, Sobukwe did not seek to be absorbed into white civilization but instead advocated for an independent African identity that was free from the constraints of colonial and apartheid-era ideologies.

Mangcu’s critique of Luthuli’s submission to white civilization ultimately calls into question the ANC’s historical approach to race relations. By laughing at Luthuli’s admission, Mangcu underscored the absurdity of a liberation leader asking for acceptance from the very system he was supposed to be fighting against. This moment in the lecture served as a powerful reminder of the contradictions within the ANC’s leadership during the struggle against apartheid, particularly in its early years, and the ways in which these contradictions have continued to shape South Africa’s political landscape.

In conclusion, Mangcu’s recounting of Albert Luthuli’s words, delivered with laughter and irony, highlights the tension between the ANC’s liberal multiracialism and the more radical ideologies of African nationalism. By exposing this contradiction, Mangcu challenges us to reconsider the legacy of the ANC’s approach to race relations and to engage more critically with the history of the liberation struggle in South Africa.