A recent UNISA/Sowetan
Dialogues co-hosted by the Thabo Mbeki Foundation on November 30 had this apocalyptic-sounding
subject: “What can be done to prevent the total collapse of race relations in
South Africa?”
The abstract verbatim, as printed in the Sunday Times,
November 20:
“There has been several reported cases of racism and
discrimination in the country this year.
They include prejudice and racial discrimination endured by black
learners at Pretoria Girls High School; while the racism cases involving the
likes of Penny Sparrow, Dianne Kohler-Barnard and Chris Hart underscored the
fact racism in South Africa is still alive and kicking. Is this an indication
that, two decades after democracy; the noble idea of a rainbow nation, united
in its diversity; remains elusive? Is
this the nation-building and social cohesion project at risk of failing apart
and what will be the consequences of this failure?”
According to this hypothesis racism is the sole preserve of
whites – the abstract doesn’t mention black racism and xenophobia.
Contradicting the dire and exaggerated reportage about race relations
is the Institute of Race Relation’s 2015 survey Race:
What South Africans Really Think that found 54% of South Africans said
relations improved since 1994 and 79% experienced no racism. Only 5% think racism, xenophobia or reverse apartheid
is the country’s most serious unresolved problem.
The closest it comes to answering which group might be
predisposed to be racist is 19% of whites and 9% of blacks (black, “coloured”
and Asian to the question: What race do you prefer your child’s teacher to be?).
South Africa’s population is 55 million, with 4.5 million
whites. Consider this thought
experiment: extrapolating from the finding above, only 19% of whites, or 855
000 people, might be considered racially conservative (or racist). And 9% of blacks, or 4.5 million people (9
percent of the remaining 50.5 million population), might be conservative or
racist. So there could be five times
more black racists, bigots and
xenophobes than white bigots. This makes
sense because the country’s black population is eleven times larger.
So why does a small group of racists within the white
minority – if we accept my reasoning, less than 2% of SA’s total population – provoke
such outrage that leads the media, government, state institutions, politicians,
academics, etc to the conclusion Armageddon is upon us? And this while virtually ignoring the much larger
number of potential black racists and xenophobes within the community?
For example, in SA xenophobia, which is not racism by definition
but still prejudice against people of other nationalities, is almost
exclusively by black Africans against dark-skinned
aliens including Somalis, Nigerians and Pakistanis. Is this not racism by another name? Why are attacks
on foreign-owned shops, where the owners are forced to flee, virtually
ignored by the media and state? There’s loss of life and property and
impairment of dignity and security, but it’s hardly worth mentioning.
Note after a delayed report the SA Human Rights Commission
(SAHRC) found King Goodwill Zwelithini was not guilty of promoting and
propagating hatred against foreigners during a speech on 15 March 2015 that led
to xenophobic attacks in Durban, but “misinterpreted”.
Lawyers for Human Rights believe his speech played a “contributing role”, and
he was “unrepentant”.
Jonathan Jansen asked why there is outrage at (white) racism
but none at the gang rape of a 13-year-old girl. He said:
“We have become an outrage-by-incident society. We wait for
the next racist act and then, for about a week, celebrities, politicians and
Joe Blow try to out-moralise [in my opinion certain media personalities tend to
“out-moralise” the whole nation] each other with statements of outrage. Then
everything goes quiet again until the next incident.”
Referring to the case in Nyanga where 10 men raped the girl
he said, “You are less likely to have heard about this event, since most of the
media barely gave it a glance”. His conclusion
is “we” care more about racism than rape and other crimes especially affecting
impoverished communities, because it happens so often.
I agree we have become inured to unacceptably high levels of
crime and other social ills. But if some
of us “care” more about racism it’s because in this society – one where the dream
of economic growth and prosperity has been indefinitely deferred and democratic
principles are being threatened – racism is an expedient bogeymen, or whipping
boy, used to distract attention from the country’s failures. And whites are in no position to complain.
Political events over the past year – former finance
minister Nhlanhla Nene’s firing and Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan’s legal
troubles – caused almost irreparable harm to the economy. The culprits orchestrating this are still in
office and fighting tooth and nail to remain there, causing concerns about the erosion
of constitutional principles.
But if we believe the media, politicians, certain members of
academia and SAHRC, Penny Sparrow, a slightly pathetic middle-aged white woman
no-one had heard of before, created almost as much damage to SA’s social fabric
as rampaging President Jacob Zuma, Nkandlagate, Gordhangate
and state capture.
It was her utterance
more than anything that resulted in the hasty formulation of the “hate speech
law”. About it acting chairman of the SAHRC
Mohamed
Ameermia said “we are calling on Parliament to fast-track the national plan
to criminalise hate speech”, a fatuous request because this is not a matter of life and death and
procedures for the enactment of laws cannot be swept aside on a whim.
The SAHRC was lethargic prosecuting Velaphi Khumalo for his
“do
what Hitler did to the Jews” comment, for which he received a slap on the
wrist from his employer, compared to the over-the-top reaction and punishment
meted out to Sparrow. So its demand to
fast-track the law is ironic.
(Disclosure: After the bumbling [affidavit “lost”] and
indifferent [no proper investigation] way the SAHRC handled my complaint about
a routine matter – unrelated to racism – years ago, I have little use for it. My cynicism says the institution is motivated
by political agendas especially where it concerns the perennially hot-topic, white-on-black
racism. However, my prejudice toward it
has no correlation to the actual good it might
be doing to create a just, equitable and colour-blind society. Unfortunately, because inequality has increased
and our constitutional values are under threat, I’d say it is failing.)
The consensus among speakers at the UNISA/Sowetan Dialogues
is the “fundamental cause of racial prejudice that engulfed the country is the
lack of economic transformation and inequality” the inherited economic system
post-1994, competition for (limited) opportunities, continuing white people
privilege and the landless and poverty-stricken black majority (Teresa
Oakley-Smith, Harry Nengwekhulu, et al).
This is largely my conclusion too. However, I disagree profoundly with their
reductionist and tendentious assertion racism and prejudice is only a white problem, as outlined in their
abstract. And for the media,
politicians, state and others to promote and propagate this view is irresponsible
and pouring kerosene over volatile tensions, harming fragile race relations.
Whites as a proportion of the population are the most
economically affluent and privileged group (although the black
middle-class has trebled over the last 12 years to more than double the
white middle-class). This is due to
historical reasons, which we should not forget.
But the failure of the country to improve socio-economic conditions
for the majority of its people within a generation, if ever, which other
developing countries show is possible, are the result of the near collapse of
education, which on its own would have made a significant impact;
implementation of ideological but unsound economic policies; entrenched, symbiotic power relations between
the ANC alliance and big business harking back to the dawn of democracy that resulted
in a closed, relatively un-free and inefficient economy mitigating against
inclusion, growth and prosperity for all.
Analysts and economists – but not those on the left – ratings
agencies and IMF have repeatedly expressed these concerns and that the country
must reform
its economy. But it falls on deaf
ears because the status quo suits decision makers. Greg Mills and Jeffrey Herbst wrote in Africa’s Third Liberation the people
and leaders of a country have a choice not to remain poor in terms of policies
they implement. But our leaders have decided
we shall remain poor and on low-growth and a low-development path.
Among the middle-class, power elite and opinion-makers
there’s a self-satisfied, “I’m alright, Jack” attitude that belies the gross conditions
the majority live under – unemployment, poverty, deprivation, crime and
despair. It’s not a black-white thing – racism,
and xenophobic-inspired racism, and class consciousness is not exclusive to
whites.
But it may be a special problem when, given our history, whites
express racist and questionable opinions, including not necessarily racist
remarks, about “those” people. (I can’t
understand why today a small minority of whites – the two percent of the
population – would still call blacks “animals” or similar, and mean it.)
Dianne Kohler-Barnard, Chris Hart and Gareth Cliff are
examples of having expressed possibly insensitive opinions given the prevailing
climate. But they were unfairly
excoriated by their enemies, employers and social media and inaccurately termed
“racist”, and their reputations almost destroyed. Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible offers a warning about the
dangers of whispering.
But in our society outrageous double standards exist. This is what Jimmy Mzwanele Manyi, president
of the Progressive Professionals Forum, wrote
and published in what was once a leading newspaper for intellectuals and
opinion makers, the Mail & Guardian (M&G):
“The new normal has also provided a safe haven for the
breeding and nurturing of racist stereotypes and has emboldened the racist
elements to call black people monkeys, openly revere apartheid bosses like
Verwoerd and PW Botha and provided a climate for people like Chris Hart to
accuse black people of entitlement.”
This appalling hypocrisy is from one who as a government
spokesman unequivocally stated “coloureds” are in oversupply in the Western
Cape (he meant me too). Former finance and
minister in the presidency Trevor Manuel wrote
Manyi was a “racist in the mould of HF Verwoed” (note the irony Manyi comparing
other people to Verwoed too).
While everyone has a right to his opinion, it’s absurd M&G
published this so-called authoritative anti-white, racism article from one who
has so little credibility – and was the laughing stock of country – in the
matter. A double irony is M&G ran it
under the headline “Double standards and racism deepen in South Africa”.
Double standards by and applied to whom; who
was likened to apartheid’s architect for his “coloured oversupply” remark, and
did Manyi express the view
of the ANC alliance and government? (Would
M&G publish an article about black racism written by an “apologetic” Penny
Sparrow and Chris Hart? I doubt it.)
But this is what the media and establishment have become:
willing to look for white racists under every bush but ignoring or excusing
glaring social and economic prejudice and the “fundamental causes” of
inequality and lack of economic development in the country, the “real” issue. They, whom I call the PC witch-hunt brigade, have
started a whispering campaign against white racists and alleged white racists, although
there are racists among all groups who are not shy about expressing their
opinions.
Manyi apologised
and his employer forgave him (as Velaphi Khumalo’s did). I don’t know if the SAHRC investigated
him. His deliberate racial agitation, or
faux pas if we were inclined to be
kind, resulted in no real harm to him personally; his reputation is intact and
some in the media space now consider him an authority on race relations. But are white racists and those who
carelessly utter questionable remarks about blacks allowed to apologise and receive
some form of redemption?
Kohler-Barnard was brought before a DA disciplinary
committee, fined and prosecuted
at the Equality Court. Chris hart
lost his job – he “resigned” – after Standard bank suspended him. MTN fired Gareth Cliff from Idols SA, but
even after he won his court case, the 702 midday news show host asked Cliff’s
lawyer, Dali Mpofu, sotto voce, about
Cliff’s “racism”.
After Matthew Theunissen’s racist post on Facebook he
apologised immediately, including expressing remorse during a radio interview,
and cooperated with the SAHRC. This was
not enough to get him off the hook completely, and it should not have been. He settled with the SAHRC and received six
months community service, “anger
management therapy‚ anti-racism research and no sharing on social media”.
So if you’re a white racist, you’re unlikely to be shown
mercy, even after you apologise. If you defend
or offer support to a white racist or alleged racist, you are deemed toxic and
your reputation and livelihood shall suffer.
Even if you are innocent of anything, you shall be shunned by
association. As MTN’s lawyer Wim
Trengrove argued,
“M-Net does not want somebody who defended Penny Sparrow”.
Similarly, it’s unlikely Vanessa Hartley will receive much
mercy although she apologised. It was in reference to her remarks the
SAHRC’s Mohamed Ameermia urged the fast-tracking of the hate speech law.
I don’t think South Africa needs the hate speech law because
cases this year proved existing mechanisms are effective to deal with racist
and hate speech provided the will is there, which the SAHRC showed with its
perceived one-sided prosecution of white racists. (It appears reluctant to
tackle black racism and xenophobia, but I would be glad to be proven wrong.)
My biggest worry, though, is it’s the thin edge of the wedge
to shut down freedom of expression, bit by bit.
How long will it be before there is a bill preventing criticism of the
president, cabinet and Parliamentarians?
I wrote before racism ought to be treated in a sober,
balanced and fair way. My impression is
it’s not. By the examples they use, the
UNISA/Sowetan Dialogues’ abstract attributing racism to whites is a reflection
of the prejudicial, bigoted and, yes, racist way the media, state institutions,
etc consider the problem.
From the way racism is being dealt with now, I fear once the
hate speech law comes into effect it may be used as a tool to punish whites who
step out of line and who, based on
whispers and gossip, are perceived to
step out of line. This is where we are
already at, but the hate speech law has the potential to damage race relations
and harden attitudes when racism is actually not the country’s supreme
priority.
Comments
Post a Comment