Partially
a narrative history, partially the oral history of a partnership, the book aims
to present Ruth First and Joe Slovo’s lives immersed in the context of their
time, historical flow, cultural and social surroundings, community, family,
friends, colleagues, and comrades. These were complex individuals: their
partnership, early years and beyond, was tested by their individuality,
irreverence, ideology, infidelity, and intensity. Ruth and Joe’s daughters,
Shawn, Gillian, and Robyn, are
on
record stating that they each paid a high price for their parents’ political
commitment. Family, friends, and Ruth and Joe themselves have spoken of their
intense private and public political disagreements. Yet letters between Ruth
and Joe imply that the personal and political boundaries muddled, and in spite
of the contrasts, they each believed that they made the other better, more
thoughtful, smarter, and more effective.
Ruth
First could be thoughtful, contentious, generous, academic, intellectual,
revolutionary, and more. Joe Slovo was tough, humorous, soft, harsh, congenial,
thoughtful, political, musical, and revolutionary. Ruth’s colleague at Durham
University, Gavin Williams, spoke with me about Ruth, and his words might also
describe Joe:
In
many respects what you saw is what you got. With Ruth there was no bullshit.
But, she lived a complicated life. Obviously the personal which comes out in
Joe’s book, but she had so many commitments doing a wide, complex range of
things that you can’t understand her by knowing her in one context rather than
in all contexts. None of us could have known her
in
all contexts.
Ruth
was sometimes compared to Rosa Luxemburg. Her commitment to the struggle
against apartheid is given as testimony throughout the interviews I had with
the people who knew her. In fact, Constitutional Court justice Albie Sachs
said, “I once described her as a product of Lenin and the LSE” (London School
of Economics). Headlines from a newspaper interview with Ruth during her London
years read, “I am a Revolutionary.” Finally, her friend at the London School of
Economics and beyond, American Danny Schechter, told me, “She was not playing
the revolution, she was making the revolution, or trying to.”
Everyone
I interviewed spoke of Joe Slovo as a revolutionary. Probably the most poignant
comment, however, came from Jaya Josie, who worked with Joe during the eighties
in Lusaka:
For
him the focus must be on South Africa and that was his main goal. He put every
effort into the struggle and he took his role as leading Umkhonto we Sizwe very
seriously. What drove Joe was his commitment, his compassion. It was almost as
if he would be very distraught if someone was hurt. That
sort
of commitment was almost religious in a way.
When
I spoke with Helena Dolny, Joe’s second wife, she said, “I don’t own the truth
on Joe.” Though I clearly do not own the
truth on Ruth or Joe, this book represents my description and interpretation of
their stories in the struggle against apartheid. Ruth First and Joe Slovo were
both leaders among leaders. They had different styles. They had different roles
in the struggle. Their complex and vital places in the fight for a democratic
South Africa need to be portrayed for the people that knew them, and more
important for those who have come after them, both in South Africa and
throughout the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment