In an interview on 702’s Midday Report last week about the “Middelburg
coffin” incident, the host asked (paraphrased): “Why do these racist incidences (white-on-black)
continue occurring”? At the start of the show he rhetorically stated it
can only be described as “racist” (note the accused, Theo Martins Jackson and
Willem Oosthuizen, face charges of assault, not racism).
Of course these incidences should be reported and analysed, but not in the shock-horror tones the media, and some media personalities, have perfected. What is required are balanced, sober assessments why South Africa today appears more racially divided and allegedly moving further apart than its halcyon, “rainbow nation” era under Nelson Mandela’s governorship. (See Anthea Jeffery’s article on the media’s duty to report honestly without fear or favour.)
Indeed, are there comparatively more racists in SA than elsewhere, and more “racist” incidences and discriminatory practices now than 5 or 20 years ago? The untested, popular assumption is South African whites are probably racist. Are whites basically, genetically racist – in their DNA – or is it only an unreformed, atavistic few among them?
What about black racism that according to many, e.g. Sobantu
Mzwakali “Black
people can’t be racist”, is impossible?
But when the “impossible” does happen – “Kill
a Jew; Fuck the Jews”, “shoot
the boers”, do what “Hitler
did to the Jews”, “makwerekwere
go home”, etc – why is it rationalised and reaction and outrage relatively
muted?
The Institute of Race Relation’s (IRR) 2015 survey Race:
What South Africans Really Think found a total of 54% (all races combined)
said race relations have improved since 1994, and 79% (black: 79%; “coloured”:
81%; Asian: 56% and white: 75%) said they experienced no racism. (By the way, 87% agreed merit should be the
main factor for job appointments, regardless of race.)
My interpretation of the finding “experience of racism” indicates
racism incidences are infrequent. But
when they do occur, or I should say, when white-on-black incidences and alleged
incidences occur, they instantly become hot-button issues and achieve
notoriety.
The closest the survey comes to answering which SA race group
is more likely, or inherently predisposed, to be racist is to the question
“What race do you prefer your child’s teacher/lecturer to be?”. A total of 9% (black: 8%, “coloured”: 9%,
Asian: 1% and white: 19%) prefer teachers to be of the same race as them (a
total of 91% don’t care provided they teach well).
The overall finding of the survey, though, “casts doubt on the suggestion whites
are hell-bent on returning to apartheid”. But why
is the perception white racism is worsening? Is racism worse in SA than elsewhere?
In 2015 the trading group Insider Monkey published a list of the 25
most racist countries. It updated the
Washington Post’s “racism
map” that showed the most and least racially tolerant countries, responding
to the question “Would you like having people from another race as neighbours”.
The Post’s map was
derived from Swedish economists’ Niclas
Berggren and Therese Nilsson (2012, Does
Economic Freedom Foster Tolerance, IFN Working Paper no. 918) that built on
the World Values Survey (2012). (Insider Monkey states racism is not easy
to measure, and “most racists don’t know they are racist and the ones that know
won’t admit it”, so an indirect measure was used.)
South Africa is ranked the 9th most racist
country after, in order, India (1st), Lebanon, Bahrain, Libya,
Egypt, Philippines, Kuwait and Palestine.
There are no European (excluding Russia, 20th), North
American and Australasian countries in the top 25.
I think the findings puts paid to the perception white countries
(and white people) are particularly racist.
Britain and former colonies United States, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand are among the most tolerant, as are Latin American countries. Among the most racially intolerant countries –
the top 25 – are in Africa, Asia and the Middle East, most of which, at one
time or another, were colonial vassals.
When people are racist, misogynistic, xenophobic or
homophobic it's because they have had a closeted upbringing, experiences,
belief and so on, or have been indoctrinated and refuse to change their
perceptions – flat-earths in a heliocentric universe. In that case, little preaching and legislating,
e.g. the “race and hate speech” bill, will change that. So it’s naive to
ask “why racism continues”.
But when racist incidences happen there ought to be no difference of approach, in law, to white or black racists, as Kallie Kriel argues. Part of the reason for this apparent hard line attitude to white racism and alleged white racism – and comparative leniency toward black racism – is South Africa, and black South Africans, are extremely sensitive to the “historical significance [of racist terms] previously used to deligitimise and dehumanise black people. [These] terms captures the heartland of racism‚ its contemptuous disregard and calculated dignity-nullifying effects on others” (Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng).
Despite SA having moved politically
beyond its dreadful past, I wonder how many whites really understand the significance
for blacks of the echoes of the past and its racist terminology even if used
carelessly without malicious intent. But
the understandable sensitivity to these terms and conduct does not justify what
Kriel calls the “double standards regarding racism” in a society where black
racism is on the rise.
It is unfortunate some blacks and often privileged ones at
that – as Rhodes and fees must fall protestors have done and gotten away with
it – use race as a weapon and stigmata of victimhood. In other cases
race is used with an incendiary,
political purpose against social injustice wrought by the defective economic
system and governing party’s misrule.
And this is “their” party that according to SA’s democratic creation
myth liberated us from oppression – “the
idea of the ANC as redeemer of an oppressed and impoverished people is now in
radical decline” (Laurence Piper).
Unfortunately, institutional racism in SA, including the
different and even unfair ways the justice system deals with the likes of Penny
Sparrow, Velaphi Khumalo, etc is entrenched and unlikely to change. This
is divisive and regressive because racism
is not our most urgent social issue,
but lack of economic growth and development, unemployment, and the stifling of
opportunity it has brought.
In the IRR’s survey only 5% of all South Africans think
racism, xenophobia or reverse racism is the country’s “most serious unresolved
problem”. Unemployment[i]
(56%) tops the response, followed by crime, housing, poor delivery, etc. South African’s belief, born out of intuition
and experience and as indicated in the survey, is that economic and social
well-being are far more important than racism.
This is proved, to some extent, by Berggren’s and Nilsson’s study:
“Earlier
studies suggest societal factors, such as policies, institutions and
socioeconomic outcomes, and sentiments towards such factors, exert an influence
on people’s ways of thinking and feeling about others. [Our] cross-country regression analysis encompassing
up to 65 countries indicate economic freedom improves tolerance” particularly
toward homosexuals, “a useful indicator of tolerant attitudes overall”. Economic freedom “makes people more
open-minded to people that in some sense are different from them”.
Citing other sources, Berggren and Nilsson
define “tolerance as respect for diversity, and openness,
inclusiveness, and diversity to all ethnicities, races, and walks of life”. They state, for example, more tolerance is
expected where there is material well-being – affluence – when there is less
competition over scarce resources, and through education – socialisation and
teaching. Racial tolerance is positive
in the “absence of regulation, and negative from [an absence of] legal
structure and security of property rights”.
Summarising:
“While tolerance towards people of a different race are not strongly
affected by how free markets are, stable
monetary policy and [economic] outcomes [emphasis mine] is the area of
economic freedom most consistently associated with greater tolerance, but the
quality of the legal system seems to matter as well.”
South African politicians and business in particular but
many in society appear unwilling to honestly look at how the country has
managed economic transformation since 1994. If they did, they would
find we have done poorly, the collateral consequences of which are increasing
protests and unrest, and dare I say perceptions
of increasing racism. This is proven by the fact the most significant protests of
recent years – the Rhodes and fees
protests – were not really about colonialism, race and lack of
transformation, but lack of jobs,
opportunity and economic growth.
Comments
Post a Comment