不平等是新的種族隔離 社會羣體分化嚴重

When I close my eyes and think back to apartheid, it’s 1984 and I’m sitting on my grandparents’ veranda in Johannesburg. It’s a blazing December day, and I’ve just had a swim in their pool. Nesta, the black maid who lives behind the kitchen, is cutting the chocolate cake. In the garden below, her grandchildren are playing in our old underpants from Europe. We all know that apartheid will last forever.

當我合上雙眼回憶種族隔離年代時，腦海裏就會閃現1984年我坐在約翰內斯堡祖父母家門廊上的畫面。那是11月的一天，屋外豔陽高照，我剛在他們家的游泳池裏遊了個泳。黑人女僕奈絲塔在切巧克力蛋糕，她就住在廚房後面。門廊下的花園裏，她的孫輩們在玩耍着，身上穿着我們從歐洲帶回來的舊內褲。我們都以爲種族隔離會永遠維持下去。

Twenty years ago this Sunday, South Africa’s first multiracial elections officially buried apartheid. But I still see apartheid everywhere I go. In part, this is a personal deformation. The apartheid I witnessed on visits to my grandparents was the most vivid sight of my childhood, more interesting than anything in the small Dutch town where I grew up, and so it remains my frame for understanding the world.

20年前的4月27日，南非首次不分種族的選舉正式埋葬了種族隔離制度。但我不管去哪兒，仍到處可見種族隔離的影子。這多少帶有個人性質的畸形。在祖父母家目睹的種族隔離是我最生動鮮明的童年畫面，比我長大時的常居地——荷蘭小鎮裏的一切要有趣得多，因此它成了我理解世界的框架。

True, the analogy with South African apartheid is never perfect. Today’s apartheid isn’t as naked. No country now has laws dividing people by “race”. No country proclaims a policy of “Bantu education”, which deliberately teaches blacks only just enough to do lowly jobs for whites. And yet things often seem to end up that way.

沒錯，與南非種族隔離制度的任何類比都是不完美的。今天的種族隔離表現得沒有那麼赤裸裸。如今再沒有國家立法以“種族”劃分人民，也沒有國家宣佈“班圖人教育”(Bantu education)政策——一項將黑人刻意教育得僅能爲白人完成低端工作的教育政策。可事情往往最終會向那個方向發展。

I especially see apartheid in the US. True, the country has made racist speech taboo. Use a racial epithet in public and your career combusts. That’s lovely.

我在美國見到的種族隔離尤勝於別處。沒錯，這個國家禁止發表種族主義言論。如果誰當衆用到帶種族主義色彩的詞語，他的職業生涯就算完了。這挺好。

However, American school taxes are usually raised locally, and many neighbourhoods are segregated, and so most poor black children attend underfunded schools where they learn just enough to do lowly jobs for whites. The US later tries to airlift a few victims out of the ghetto through “affirmative action”, but by then the damage is done. Like apartheid South Africa, the US ensures through schooling that most black people won’t succeed. It just doesn’t call this “Bantu education”.

然而，美國的學校通常靠地方稅收維持，而許多居民區是隔離的，因此家境貧寒的黑人孩子大多隻能就讀於資金匱乏的學校，他們在那兒所受的教育僅夠爲白人完成低端工作。雖然後來美國試圖通過“平權法案”從貧民區裏救出少數犧牲品，但到了那時傷害已經鑄就。就像種族隔離制度下的南非，美國的教育制度意味着大多數黑人無法走上成功道路。美國只是不把這稱作“班圖人教育”。

My instinctive measure of a society is how closely it resembles South African apartheid. On that score the Netherlands – despite ample racist speech – arguably beats the US, because the Dutch give so-called “black schools” more funding than white suburban schools. Similarly, ethnically mixed-up London has less apartheid than segregated Paris.

我衡量一個社會時，本能上會看其與南非種族隔離制度的相近程度。以這個評分標準來看，充斥着大量種族歧視言論的荷蘭可以說勝過美國，因爲荷蘭給所謂的“黑人學校”的撥款要高於白人郊區學校。同樣地，倫敦種族混雜，而巴黎種族隔離，倫敦的種族隔離沒有巴黎那麼嚴重。

South African apartheid determined people’s life paths from before birth. If you were a white embryo, you’d be fine. A black embryo wouldn’t. I remember, aged about 16, sitting on the porch of some ridiculous white adult fraud, listening to him preach about the stupidity of his black servants, and realising: this guy needs to believe he made his own success. Few people at the top can think, “Luckily, I chose the right parents.” Instead they tell themselves a story about work and talent – even though their maid probably outworks them, and nobody ever cared whether she had talent.

南非的種族隔離在人們出生前就決定了他們的人生軌跡。如果你投胎爲白人，你的人生將一路暢通，但如果投胎爲黑人就不行了。我記得自己大約16歲時，坐在一個有些可笑的、僞善的白人的門廊上，聽他嘮叨他的黑僕如何愚蠢，心想：這傢伙得相信他是靠自己成功的。上層人很少意識到，“太走運了，我投對了胎。”相反，他們用工作和才華這種故事來自欺欺人，哪怕他們的女僕很可能比他們辛苦得多，而且無人在乎她是否有才華。

Inequality is the new apartheid. Your life path is largely determined before birth. The ruling classes pass on their status by sending their children to exclusive schools, much like in apartheid Johannesburg.

不平等是新的種族隔離。你的人生軌跡在出生前就已基本決定。統治階層通過將孩子送進貴族學校來傳承自己的地位，這跟種族隔離的約翰內斯堡十分相似。

Happily, ethnicity is no longer always decisive. Still, today’s apartheid delivers outcomes as unequal as the old apartheid did. One measure of a society’s inequality is its Gini coefficient. South Africa’s Gini in 1995, just after apartheid, was a shocking 0.59 (where 0 is perfect equality, and 1 is perfect inequality). But Manhattan today has almost exactly the same Gini: 0.6, according to the US Census Bureau. Amazingly, South Africa itself has become less equal since apartheid: by 2009 the country’s Gini had risen to 0.63, says the World Bank.

幸運的是，種族已不再決定一切。但今天的隔離所產生的效果與舊的種族隔離制度一樣不平等。衡量社會不平等的一個指標就是它的基尼係數。1995年，剛結束種族隔離制度之後的南非基尼係數很糟，爲0.59（0代表完全平等，1代表完全不平等）。但根據美國人口普查局(US Census Bureau)的數據，曼哈頓今天的基尼係數幾乎與之完全相同：0.6。令人驚奇的是，南非自己居然變得比種族隔離時期更加不平等，根據世界銀行(World Bank)的數據，該國2009年基尼係數升到了0.63。

Political talk today often sends me drifting back to apartheid. I remember white South African liberals bemoaning apartheid while the maid served supper. I grasped only recently (after reading Mark Gevisser’s excellent new book Dispatcher, about Johannesburg) that most of them didn’t want to end apartheid. They just liked talking liberal talk. It made them feel virtuous, and set them above peasants who actually believed in apartheid. In fact, apartheid liberals resemble liberals today who bemoan climate change while flying everywhere and not voting for parties that would tackle the problem (I know: I’m guilty too). As climate change gets forgotten, the latest fake liberals are the Davos types who bemoan inequality at billionaire-sponsored cocktail parties.

當今的政治言論常常讓我穿越時空，回到種族隔離時代。我想起那些一邊享用女傭端上的晚餐，一邊抱怨種族隔離的南非白人自由派人士。最近我讀了馬克•格維瑟(Mark Gevisser)新出的有關約翰內斯堡的傑作《調度員》(Dispatcher)之後，才瞭解他們大多數人並不想終結種族隔離。他們只是喜歡空談自由派的言論。這令他們產生高尚感，將他們置於那些信奉種族隔離的“農民”之上。事實上，種族隔離時期的自由派人士，跟今天那些一面抱怨氣候變化，一面頻頻搭乘飛機出行，還不願意投票支持有意對付這一問題的政黨的自由派人士（我知道，我也難逃其咎）如出一轍。隨着氣候變化漸漸被人們拋諸腦後，那些齊聚達沃斯、在億萬富翁贊助的雞尾酒會上抱怨不平等的人成了最新的僞自由派人士。

Still, South Africa showed me that progress can happen. Apartheid ended partly for the same reason why communism collapsed in 1989, and why inequality may yet diminish: the ruling class became ashamed. Apartheid’s demise taught me that politics matter, that individual politicians matter (the white regime trusted Nelson Mandela with the country) and that history never happens the way you expect. South Africa avoided civil war. Instead, as the old communist Albie Sachs told me, “The communists made the liberal revolution.” I’ve learnt that utopia never arrives: South Africa won’t ever be Switzerland. But it could become Chile.

話雖如此，南非還是向我證明了進步是可能發生的。種族隔離制度結束的原因，部分類似於東歐共產黨政權在1989年垮臺，它也是不平等有望減少的原因：統治階層變得羞愧了。種族隔離制度的滅亡告訴我，政治是重要的，個別政治家可能扭轉乾坤（白人政權信任納爾遜•曼德拉(Nelson Mandela)執掌國家），以及歷史永遠不按照你預期的道路發展。南非避免了內戰。相反，正如老共產主義者阿爾比•薩克斯(Albie Sachs)對我說的，“共產主義者開創了自由派革命。”我認識到烏托邦永遠不會到來：南非永遠不會變成瑞士，但它有可能變成智利。

Some things have got better. Nesta, while working for my grandparents, simultaneously raised her own grandchildren in her house five hours away. This month she died, aged about 85. Her grandchildren buried her. She had worked them hard. They read books. Several of them graduated from university. They have a slightly better chance in life than she did.

有些事變得好一些了。奈絲塔的家離我祖父母家有5小時路程，她在爲我祖父母工作的同時，在自己家養大了她的孫輩。她上個月過世了，享年85歲，她的孫輩們安葬了她。她教導他們勤奮上進。他們念過書，有些還唸到大學畢業。相比她，他們的人生機會略好一些。