不平等是新的种族隔离 社会群体分化严重

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.

当我合上双眼回忆种族隔离年代时，脑海里就会闪现1984年我坐在约翰内斯堡祖父母家门廊上的画面。那是11月的一天，屋外艳阳高照，我刚在他们家的游泳池里游了个泳。黑人女仆奈丝塔在切巧克力蛋糕，她就住在厨房后面。门廊下的花园里，她的孙辈们在玩耍着，身上穿着我们从欧洲带回来的旧内裤。我们都以为种族隔离会永远维持下去。

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，南非首次不分种族的选举正式埋葬了种族隔离制度。但我不管去哪儿，仍到处可见种族隔离的影子。这多少带有个人性质的畸形。在祖父母家目睹的种族隔离是我最生动鲜明的童年画面，比我长大时的常居地——荷兰小镇里的一切要有趣得多，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.

没错，与南非种族隔离制度的任何类比都是不完美的。今天的种族隔离表现得没有那么赤裸裸。如今再没有国家立法以“种族”划分人民，也没有国家宣布“班图人教育”(Bantu education)政策——一项将黑人刻意教育得仅能为白人完成低端工作的教育政策。可事情往往最终会向那个方向发展。

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.

我在美国见到的种族隔离尤胜于别处。没错，这个国家禁止发表种族主义言论。如果谁当众用到带种族主义色彩的词语，他的职业生涯就算完了。这挺好。

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，美国的学校通常靠地方税收维持，而许多居民区是隔离的，因此家境贫寒的黑人孩子大多只能就读于资金匮乏的学校，他们在那儿所受的教育仅够为白人完成低端工作。虽然后来美国试图通过“平权法案”从贫民区里救出少数牺牲品，但到了那时伤害已经铸就。就像种族隔离制度下的南非，美国的教育制度意味着大多数黑人无法走上成功道路。美国只是不把这称作“班图人教育”。

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.

我衡量一个社会时，本能上会看其与南非种族隔离制度的相近程度。以这个评分标准来看，充斥着大量种族歧视言论的荷兰可以说胜过美国，因为荷兰给所谓的“黑人学校”的拨款要高于白人郊区学校。同样地，伦敦种族混杂，而巴黎种族隔离，伦敦的种族隔离没有巴黎那么严重。

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.

南非的种族隔离在人们出生前就决定了他们的人生轨迹。如果你投胎为白人，你的人生将一路畅通，但如果投胎为黑人就不行了。我记得自己大约16岁时，坐在一个有些可笑的、伪善的白人的门廊上，听他唠叨他的黑仆如何愚蠢，心想：这家伙得相信他是靠自己成功的。上层人很少意识到，“太走运了，我投对了胎。”相反，他们用工作和才华这种故事来自欺欺人，哪怕他们的女仆很可能比他们辛苦得多，而且无人在乎她是否有才华。

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.

不平等是新的种族隔离。你的人生轨迹在出生前就已基本决定。统治阶层通过将孩子送进贵族学校来传承自己的地位，这跟种族隔离的约翰内斯堡十分相似。

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.

幸运的是，种族已不再决定一切。但今天的隔离所产生的效果与旧的种族隔离制度一样不平等。衡量社会不平等的一个指标就是它的基尼系数。1995年，刚结束种族隔离制度之后的南非基尼系数很糟，为0.59（0代表完全平等，1代表完全不平等）。但根据美国人口普查局(US Census Bureau)的数据，曼哈顿今天的基尼系数几乎与之完全相同：0.6。令人惊奇的是，南非自己居然变得比种族隔离时期更加不平等，根据世界银行(World Bank)的数据，该国2009年基尼系数升到了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.

当今的政治言论常常让我穿越时空，回到种族隔离时代。我想起那些一边享用女佣端上的晚餐，一边抱怨种族隔离的南非白人自由派人士。最近我读了马克•格维瑟(Mark Gevisser)新出的有关约翰内斯堡的杰作《调度员》(Dispatcher)之后，才了解他们大多数人并不想终结种族隔离。他们只是喜欢空谈自由派的言论。这令他们产生高尚感，将他们置于那些信奉种族隔离的“农民”之上。事实上，种族隔离时期的自由派人士，跟今天那些一面抱怨气候变化，一面频频搭乘飞机出行，还不愿意投票支持有意对付这一问题的政党的自由派人士（我知道，我也难逃其咎）如出一辙。随着气候变化渐渐被人们抛诸脑后，那些齐聚达沃斯、在亿万富翁赞助的鸡尾酒会上抱怨不平等的人成了最新的伪自由派人士。

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.

话虽如此，南非还是向我证明了进步是可能发生的。种族隔离制度结束的原因，部分类似于东欧共产党政权在1989年垮台，它也是不平等有望减少的原因：统治阶层变得羞愧了。种族隔离制度的灭亡告诉我，政治是重要的，个别政治家可能扭转乾坤（白人政权信任纳尔逊•曼德拉(Nelson Mandela)执掌国家），以及历史永远不按照你预期的道路发展。南非避免了内战。相反，正如老共产主义者阿尔比•萨克斯(Albie Sachs)对我说的，“共产主义者开创了自由派革命。”我认识到乌托邦永远不会到来：南非永远不会变成瑞士，但它有可能变成智利。

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.

有些事变得好一些了。奈丝塔的家离我祖父母家有5小时路程，她在为我祖父母工作的同时，在自己家养大了她的孙辈。她上个月过世了，享年85岁，她的孙辈们安葬了她。她教导他们勤奋上进。他们念过书，有些还念到大学毕业。相比她，他们的人生机会略好一些。