How are dogs used as signifiers in the construction of race and racial difference?

Racial difference in South Africa bears a particular importance because of our unique history. The documentary Inja yoMlungu, which in direct translation means a white man’s dog bears significance because it traces one element of racial difference within post apartheid South Africa. The aim of this paper is to map out the various distinctions made by the different ‘races’ when dealing with dogs.
With the arrival of Europeans in South Africa the settlers shaped their identity in opposition to the ‘other’, in this case the Bantu speaking natives. In this way they diminished the culture of the Bantu speaking tribes to that of barbarians, thus lessening their humanity and putting them on the same level as the animals of the African landscape. The colonialists perpetuated this belief since the 1600’s; this idea has remained in circulation with the marginalization of black people in South Africa to the present day.
As the white people formalized their superiority with the Apartheid regime the black people of South Africa played into their supposed inferiority as they were forced into the system, until that of the Black Conscious Movement and other opposition to the regime. But even in this post-Apartheid South Africa some white people still treat their dogs better than they treat the black people that work with and for them. The dogs belonging to white people then find black people antagonistic and therefore bark and sometimes attack them. This is seen in the documentary Inja yoMlungu.
Sipho Singiswa, director of this documentary takes us on an eye opening journey of black/ white dog relationships. During apartheid, dogs were often used to instigate fear amongst blacks during police raids. Movies such as Sarafina, which depicted the 1976 Soweto uprising, illustrated this use of German Shepards to instil fear amongst students. Wherever police congregate, these dogs were sure to be found there. For that reason, among general black population these became known as police dogs. One of our group members verifies this, that in his township, people call all German Shepard’s police dogs. Singiswa delves into this issue; even from the onset of the documentary he shows “police dogs” being trained to attack Black people.
Evidently, the common fear of dogs amongst black folk is not an inherent one but rather one fostered through the times. Most black people during apartheid considered dogs to be the enemy; this was a founded claim as pointed out by Singiswa. For white people the sentiment towards dogs was quite to the contrary, dogs were seen as trusted allies and protectors. Dogs roamed around the yard protecting the homes of white families.
The documentary also tells of how traditionally black people do not keep pets and dogs are seen as wild animals or that of a helper for hunting. They would not keep dogs for no reason other than to be domesticated. They would respect dogs the same they would other animals, if one is kept for hunting the dog would be fed the same as what the people would eat. They would not as some white people do by feeding the dogs meat but not the black workers.
This difference in racial attitude toward dogs has, for obvious reason, trickled down and manifested itself in contemporary racial cultures. Whites predominantly still have dogs as pets and ‘protectors’ against the outsiders. Majority of blacks still have a fear for dogs. These two seemingly stereotypical statements should not be taken in totality, as Singiswa points out that some whites fear dogs and cannot tolerate them whilst some blacks have some of the most endearing relationships with their beloved pets.
Singiswa also looks at the different ways that black and white owners of dogs treat their animals in order to show racial difference. He depicts white owners of dogs to “pamper” their dogs, not only treating them as pets but part of the family: giving them expensive food and letting them sleep on their beds, sit on the front seat of their cars etc. He depicts black owners of dogs to treat their dogs as guards of their homes, and purely as pets, without the extra ‘pampering’. Through various interviews it becomes evident that those living in poor townships, and whom are struggling with their earnings are not willing to spend large amounts on their dogs as white people are, for they are predominantly concerned with feeding their families. Here Singiswa shows evidence of racial difference through circumstantial differences that is imbedded in the power and privilege relations that have been formed by apartheid.
The title of the documentary Inja yoMlungu is classic example of Equivocation. As stated earlier, in pure translation terms, this title means a white mans dog. At a closer look, inja yomlungu is term that was applied to any black man that was befriended by whites. It was a derogatory term that was meant to insult and belittle that person. The implication of this term is that it symbolised the relationship whites were regarded as having with their dogs. Singiswa points out the stereotypical picture of a white man driving with his dog next to him, while the black labourers were in the back of the van. Any black man with a close relationship with a white man was seen as “the dog”. Black people were not understood to have relationships of such extent with their animals.
The old man in the movie whom talks about his relationship with dogs, white people, and of being a South African, speaks about how him and his father had respect for dogs for they where their ‘fellow hunters’. Explaining how they and their dogs would share their food, and hunt together. However, he explains that during apartheid black people relationships with dogs changed as white people started using dogs against them. They were no longer seen as allies, but as threats (as described earlier in this essay).