“Black racism is no less real than white racism,” writes Eisebius McKaiser in this morning’s Business Day, challenging the view that black people cannot be racist. He states:
Not only can particular remarks and actions by black people easily meet the low standards of racism, it is actually disrespectful to suggest that we cannot be racist. The temptation and capacity to injure others is a human trait. I want my capacity for evil to be recognised. If you deny me the ability to be racist, you are essentially claiming that I am intrinsically good. I cannot help but be a good guy. I am like a rock or a plant or chair — lacking the animation of a being that is fragile but recognisably human. It is hardly complimentary to exclude black people from the full range of human potentiality.
You are only morally praiseworthy for desisting from racist behaviour if, through reflection, you recognise that racism is immoral and decide to act in accordance with such moral reasoning. If we as blacks cannot help but be non-racists, then we can never get moral praise for our innate non-racism. We would simply be like toasters that work well, designed to produce warm and fuzzy feelings in others. After all, moral praise can be given only to creatures that have the capacity to act in differing ways.
By condemning Hlophe’s remark [that he will not shake the hands of a white man] as a racist assertion, we are thereby fully respecting his humanity and holding him morally accountable. By denying him the right to be judged in our game of tough ethical relations, we would implicitly be placing him outside the moral community. Even the Justice for Hlophe Alliance would not want that, surely?
At first glance this argument seems compelling. Who among us would be able to dispute that the capacity to injure others is a human trait that belongs to us all regardless of what race we might claim to belong to? Who would deny that it is deeply demeaning to argue that because of a person’s purported race, he or she either has moral agency and can do only bad, or has no agency and can only do good?
But it seems to me McKaiser misses the point of the academic debate around racism. In academic circles at least (if not around dinner tables where Julius Malema holds court) the argument is not that black people cannot be racist because they are always inherently moral and good. Rather it is that racism is about more than prejudice, bigotry and purposeful action based on race .
Racism, for this group, is also about institutional and, more broadly, structural power and outcomes that systematically benefit one group to the disadvantage of another or other groups. One can therefore only be racist if you belong to the powerful group, the group whose cultural and economic superiority is widely assumed and whose world view and belief system is thus entrenched and perpetuated and often subliminally reinforced by racism.
While black people can therefore be prejudiced, while they can be despicably bigoted (just like white people), they cannot be racist because their bigotry cannot perpetuate the structurally entrenched ideology of race-superiority. I tend to subscribe to this second view, because I believe we far too often ignore the power relations in society and the effect such relations has on discourse and on the way our worlds and our reality is constructed.
Perhaps more interesting is the question what can be done to undermine both the racism perpetrated by so called whites and racial prejudice and bigotry perpetrated by so called blacks.
My answer would be that we should begin to question the very notion of race itself. Race is a construct, not an essential reality. (In other words, while skin tone is a reality, race is not.) Although people experience race as real because of their shared experience of discrimination or privilege, this experience of reality (the suffering of which is very much real) is really just based on a human invention, a fiction if you will; the fiction of race. We have chosen to ascribe essentialist identity qualities to people based on the colour of their skin and have subjected different people to different forms of discrimination based on this invention of race.
We could have chosen to label individuals based on the town they were born in, whether they were left or right handed, what star sign they are or the size of their feet, yet we chose skin colour to supposedly tell us some essential truth about who that person is and then started treating people differently based on this invention aimed at perpetuating notions of the cultural superiority and the moral justness of the inherent economic advantage of one group over another.
For me using any of these criteria to say ANYTHING or predict ANYTHING about who a person really is, is monumentally stupid. I happen to be a Cancerian as I was born at the end of June (many, many, years ago). But what on earth do I have in common with other Cancerians like Cyndi Lauper, Pamela Anderson, Tom Cruise, Dalai Lama, George W. Bush, Sylvester Stallone, Bill Cosby or (help!) David Hasselhoff? My skin is also thought of as being white (although it is more light brownish after a week in the sun in the South of France) but that says absolutely nothing about what kind of person I am – good or bad.
The conundrum is that while race is a myth, racism is not. Because we have made ourselves believe that race matters, it does matter to us. We classify people based on race and treat them differently because of race. But we can also stop believing in race – as I have long since stopped believing in astrology (or Father Christmas for that matter). I am not arguing that we should be blind to discrimination or that we should now pretend that racial discrimination and its effects are not with us. Pretending to be colour blind merely entrenches existing privilege and keeps the system of race-superiority in place under the guise of a colour blind regime.
Instead I am arguing that we should begin to question and undermine the very essence of the system – that race is destiny, that race exists at all – while at the same time addressing the inviduous effects of that system of racial discrimination that is very much still with us today. Any suggestions of how to pull of this very difficult trick – of recognising injustice resulting from racism, while at the same time questioning the very notion of race – would be much appreciated.
I still belive that black people are incapable of being racist and we are merery a reaction to racismby whites.
I still belive that black people are incapable of being racist and we are merely a reaction to racismby whites
Pierre, Thanks for discussing my piece. I always enjoy reading your blog, and 99% of the time agree with you. Good work. [ Incidentally, BD misspelt by name which you then imported also - it is 'Eusebius'. ]
Ok. As for this post, I disagree 100%.
First, I did not miss the point about power being a precondition for racism. It is just a premise I think it is false. And, it is not a point that is only made in ‘academic’ circles, so the needless implication (inadvertent, I hope) that I must be unaware of that version of the argument since it is in the precious ‘academy’, is mistaken. I am profoundly aware of this argument and think it is utterly uncogent. I did not expect you would rehearse it, let alone own it.
For one thing, there are two obvious counterfactuals you would need to dispense with before that view can even be sustained, empirically speaking. [ And this is leaving aside - to get 'academic' about the matter - the conceptual and normative problems with such a definition of racism, as much academic literature (with which I am familiar, exposes)]
There have always been, and continue to be, poor whites. Do they get exonerated from the possibility of racism too, being ‘powerless’? Conversely, we have a black middle class with economic power – do you then gain your entitlement to be racist only once you sign the dotted line with a top corporate firm who have thereby empowered you economically? Clearly, coupling the capacity to be racist to economic (or political or social) power (in whatever sense of power you prefer) is at best going to be contingent, and so cannot exclude any group – or their individual members rather – a priori from qualifying for the label ‘racist’. It would become an empirical question. How then do you respond to those blacks who are empowered? It would be unpersuasively ad hoc, I would have thought, to try to escape this reality by somehow suggesting that the historical disempowerement of black OLDER generations haunt middle class blacks now to the extent of excluding them – into perpetuity, if you will – from being able to potentially be racist – a subtle variation on the genetic fallacy, which I should remember for my next argumentation lecture.
Second, racism is prejudice based on morphological traits. Simple. Whether race is biologically real or a social construct (social realism, if you will) is neither here nor there. If, as a black person, the RATIONALE for not shaking your hand is that you, Pierre, are WHITE, then I am racist. It is a fact that cannot be argued away by looking at my bank balance!!! In fact, I would judge YOU to be racist if you did that, because you would be patronisingly robbing me of my capacity to be arrogant, my capacity – qua personhood – to view you as less than a person. Hence the gist of my piece is that to imagine we blacks cannot be racist is not to offer us a piece of candy; it is ultimately dehumanising.
Finally, I find your distinction between ‘race is bogus’ (that’s a translation of the spirit of your analysis) but ‘racism is real’ unhelpful. If race is socially real, in a constructivist sense, than race categories are conceptually meaningful. Biological roots are not a precondition for categories to be coherent. But this is a minor conceptual point – advising that you can keep the language of race, and so discuss the important social and political aspects of addressing race-based evils left over from our past, without fearing that you are being biologically essentialist about race.
Besides, there is no need to be scared of difference: calling you white, and seeing you as non-black, can be innocuous’; in fact it can be good even since differences can be glue for intimate cross-racial (cross-linguistic, cross-XX … ) relationships to be formed.
By way of conclusion: economic power is neither necessary nor sufficient for one to act in a racist manner. [ And, as a parenthetical conceptual observation, the enemy is racism, not racialism - let's get our conceptual distinctions as clear as possible to allow for accurate debate on these thorny issues]
Ta
Eusebius
So to molest children is only a reaction to being molested and thus forgivable?
Harold, reasoning by analogy leads to calamitious consequences.
Much to my dislike, I have to agree with Eusebius that we too Blacks can be racists, but that does not mean I believe the sublime nonsense written about Justice President Hlophe by M & G, which you Eusebius implicitly albeit he is disputing it and seeking legal advice for possible remedies.
So is generalizing.
I note Zuma’s comments yesterday, that a discussion on racism is not only NOT necessary but in his view would represent going backwards. Considering that he also stated in the same breath that the ANC is well established in its non-racialism, I don’t believe his statements are honest, correct or wise, or that they illustrate leadership.
I doubt there is a country in the world which is so focused on racism as South Africa. It pervades absolutely everything and is entirely a seriously negative input into everyone’s affairs and the country’s well being.
Contrary to Zuma’s belief, I think we very much need a comprehensive nation wide examination on racism and race free of emotional clap trap, if that is possible.
Additionally I believe there needs to be an inclusive pow wow combining all stake holders, extensive dialogue and agreed upon resolutions on exactly what is expected with ‘racial’ transformation, whether in the judiciary or our social intercourse.. So far, all this nonsense is destructive, urgently requiring significant discourse and debate. I’m not sure its possible only online.
as long as white people still see black people as colonial subjects for whom everytthing is planned by them, i’m afraid it won’t end.
But prof, on your own test :
In this country Blacks are the powerful group. Structurally and institutionally.
Therefore they are capable of racism.
Vide the proceedings at the last round of JSC interviews.
And that’s also the problem with the so called transformative constitution. It does not protect the underdogs against the powerful – regarding equality.
Racism is a deadly illness spread by White minority. Black people, as Mphahlele put it, are reacting to the pandemic. White people need to change their impossible attitude. I am personally not going to leak any white person’s ass.
Pierre I am amazed that you still persist with this idiotic argument, even after the xenophobic killings, even after Hlophe.
I completly agree with Eusebius McKaiser even though I am not as eloqent as he is, he is my two cents worth.
A well known US commentator pointed out recently that Obama is actually a conservative, because he believes in personal responsibility. What nonsense – if the left gives up on personal responsibility – as many like you have – then its a grand indictment on the left and makes for an impotent movement. It´s even worse if resposibility is defined by race as you do.
Steven Biko´s whole career was predicated on instilling a sense of pride and responsibility in black South Africans.
Your views are patronising to black South Africans (at best).
Your views does not bare reality.
Case in point. The AWB membership was always predominantly consisting of working class whites, with few of them ever having been to university. But you want to explain racism with reference to abstract systems of power, what you call ´Racism, ….. is also about institutional and, more broadly, structural power and outcomes that systematically benefit one group to the disadvantage of another or other groups.´
Yes you can. Racisms presence *does* conform to the way our society is structured. But in a much more practical and real way that you suggest.
Working class whites – more likely to be AWB members, living as they do far from the high walls of leafy Rondebosch and competing as they do directly with for jobs with black South Africans – were far more directly affected by the end of apartheid than rich white South Africa.
Similarly, the economic crisis and governments failure to deliver services has driven poor blacks to resent black foreigners who are competing for their livelyhood.
But try tell a dead Mozambicans mother that black South Africans that murdered her child were not being racist!
You have never ever responded to when challenged the survey the Sunday Times did two years ago, which showed that balck respondents answered by a clear majority that when dealing with other South Africans in their daily lives (being served at restaurants, in goverment offices), they found black South Africans most racist towards them.
Your denial of their answers is just yet another denial of black agency.
Your answer is also garanteed to go down like lead in and around lake Victoria central Africa.
Part of the problem is exactly that you see. Your ‘academic’ theories have been expounded and created in Western universities. Far away from us, and completely devoid of reality.
If what you say were true, then one must asume that this country is still governed by whites.
I, for one, wouldn’t be near anyone’s “leak”ing rear, but these statements by
Mphahlele // Aug 14, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Mabitsela // Aug 14, 2009 at 12:25 pm
indicates that Racism, particularly in the South African context, is as ingrained in our psyche as sexism. It manifests itself in various forms, and like any disease, evolves and mutates.
To deny that Blacks can be racist amounts to ludicrous a claim as saying that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, and can be just as damaging.
Mabitsela says “Black people, as Mphahlele put it, are reacting to the pandemic.”
So Mabitsela why are black people reacting to the pandemic by killing Mozambicans and Zimbabweans? How does this make sense?
I wonder if anyone of colour has heard or even uttered this statement …
“I’ll never give a white person standing on a corner begging anything because they had their chance”?
Does this amount to racism?
Or even a white person seeing the same person on the corner and saying “That is a disgrace to our race”?
Another reaction to the pandemic of white racism?
The 2006 World Values Survey: 21.3% of black South Africans did not want an immigrant living next door, compared with roughly 1% of whites, coloureds and Indians.
http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/News/Article.aspx?id=772536
@sirjay johnson
“…I doubt there is a country in the world which is so focused on racism as South Africa. …”
Except perhaps these USA today.
“Racism is a deadly illness spread by White minority” Matsibela? From where did they contract this disease? From the slave traders of the Arabian peninsula? Perhaps from the african tribes who so happily helped enslave their neighbours for the Moslems of that time? Perhaps from the Greeks? The Mongol hordes? Or maybe from the Aztecs, who slaughtered their non-Aztec neighbours en masse?
Please don’t mistake the recent history of a small country at the tip of one continent as somehow indicative of the entire human race.
Really, white people aren’t so all-powerful that they can take sole responsibility for racism.
To labout the point. A reminder about the earlier Sunday Times survey on South African racism:
““Almost half of the respondents said they had received racially inspired “prejudicial” treatment in hospitals and clinics and 39% in shops. Twenty-six percent said they had been ill-treated by municipalities because of their race, and 32% said they had been treated in this manner by government agencies such as the police and the Home Affairs Department.
The survey found that even though African people were most likely to be victimised by other races, almost half of South Africans had experienced discrimination at the hands of Africans.
Some 44% of respondents claimed to have experienced an attitude from Africans they believed bordered on racial discrimination, against 27% who had received similar treatment by whites when seeking out services in public places.
The chief executive of Plus 94, Sifiso Falala, said the survey found that Africans also felt they were unlikely to be offered decent service by African employees in both public and private institutions.
“Blacks are more likely to be ill-treated on race grounds, but blacks are also more likely to treat other blacks worse than they treat people of other races,” said Falala.
The results showed that 38% of all respondents said they had experienced “discrimination” from people of all race groups in these institutions, and 45% claimed to have experienced discrimination particularly from black Africans.
Falala said the survey was aimed at measuring overt resentment, where people deliberately treated others in a way that was prejudicial and could be perceived as racism.
“What I found most interesting was that black people were the largest group with this problem, both as victims and as perpetrators.
“This is something that people need to know because it’s a reality for many people when dealing with a security guard or a bank.”
Zamile Mbanjwa, of the University of KwaZulu-Natal, said the findings were consistent with her recent experience at a Ladysmith restaurant.
“I wasn’t served because the waiter made it his policy not to serve black people because they don’t tip.”
The poll found that Indians were the most likely recipients of racial hostility from Africans, with three out of four Indian respondents claiming first-hand experience of this.
The sentiment was most obvious in Durban and academic and activist Ashwin Desai said this was not surprising. “You tend to compare yourself with somebody across the road from you. Therefore the conflict between Africans and Indians happens ironically in places where they live next to each other,” he said.
Institute for Justice and Reconciliation director Professor Charles Villa-Vicencio said: “In South Africa we need to deal not only with the bland issue of black-white relations … but the more subtle dimensions of ethnicity, culture and identity.” ”
Is there a difference between ethnic prejudice and the racial sort?
Because recently the one has recently cost people their lives while the other is merely upsetting ……
a typical example of racism is when a white person shoots at a black person and claim that he thought he was shooting at an animal
Another example of racism is when a South African sets alight a Mozambican and claims he thought he was a foreigner.
And another example is where a government radio calls on one group to kill the “cockoroaches” and then thousands of other group is hacked to death.
@ sirjay jonson
I believe that President Zuma is wise in his attitude towards the ANC’s non-racialism policy. He recognises that SA is made up of many races and that instead of the chronic confrontational inter-racial conflict, which has achieved nothing, co-operation and co-optation is the better option going forward- hence his remark that focussing on racism constitute going backwards.
The obsession with calling anyone who criticises or opposes the ANC, or anyone with political ambitions, a racist, or a Hlophephobe, or whatever, achieves nothing. If you throw mud, it sticks to your own hands.
Racism is an act or behaviour of superiority. Size of either group is not as important as factors such as economic status, cultural superiority etc. The weak and the poor are not capable of practising racism unles they can find a factor that boosts their egos and make them feel they are better than than the next person. A poor white cannot excercise racism or prejudice over a black elite. Blacks only practise racism and prejudice on each other just to impress the white master. Theoretically, blacks are not in position to dish out racism and prejudice towards whites in a large scale until they achieve equal or more economic status as whites. In the meantime they will dispense it amongst themselves to satisfy the master.
One thing though the racism amost black South Africa is ‘understandable’ (if not excusable) in the following sense.
Afrikaners clothed themselves as victims after the events of the second Anglo Boer War. And aparheid was one of this victim complxes evil children.
Similarly today many Jews and the Jewish state treat Palestinains with cruelty and disdain, blinded by their victim cloack and what they suffered previously.
We should therefore not be surprsided that some black South Africans find their behaviour ok, because to them they are still victims.
To counter this arguments like the one just presented by Pierre should be constantly fighted by presenting the hard sobering facts.
And Blackman Ngoro? Would you explain that occurrence please?
Gwebecimele, two questions for you.
Why does the Sunday Times survey show the black South Africans are more racist towards Indians than to whites?
Why does the 2006 World Values Surve show black South Africans much less racist towards foreigners from Botswana than Mozambique?
Eusebius, thank you for your contribution to the present discussion.
But with respect, I am not sure that your efforts to undermine the Professor’s position, although elegantly penned, were entirely successful.
You seem to me to conclude that economic strength is not a requisite for racism.
Well, I suggest that we suspend the possible implication of the Professor’s piece that only white people can be wealthy. And given that suspension, I would, in the first place, ask you this: is it possible to distinguish between (a) people who enjoy economic strength and (b) people who do not enjoy that luxury?
And secondly, if your answer is yes, I would ask: if we were to abandon the terminology used by the Professor, would you concede that much of the Professor’s conceptual distiniction between (a) racism and (b) racial prejudice is defensible?
Throughout the history of the world there have always been the :”have’s” and the “have nots”, whether this be wealth, power, talent, skills, intelligence, social position, or whatever. This will remain a fact of life, no matter what laws, strikes, protest and riots, or blogs are initiated to whinge about the situation. Trying to change this is like trying to make the sun revolve around the earth- a complete waste of time, energy and talent.
Alice
”If you throw mud, it sticks to your own hands.”
Nice
Leigh, the professors distinction is intenteclual masturbation.
I suggest that you read the surveys above which are normal questions put to normal everyday South Africans in normal language about everyday pejudice and discrinimation that happen to them.
@Alice37: We’ll never get anywhere by living in denial. All cultures are different. Perhaps instead of dwelling on the illusion of finding sameness, though unique within the rainbow, we would be better placed to recognize and acknowledge the differences without emotion. If you are a woman and I am a man we know we are different. By acknowledging that difference, rather than living with the illusion we are the same or even similar, we have a better chance of partnering well.
Canada has an approach called multi culturalism where the many different cultures are actually encouraged to show and express their cultural uniqueness. As a result, racism is not an all encompassing issue there. In the US the policy was to make all immigrants become alike, setting up the impossible expectation that all would be the same. That approach encouraged racism.
Acknowledging others’ differences appears to me far more productive than measuring another by my values, skin colour or propensities.
I am white and although I live in an integrated relationship I have no expectation or experience that my partner will think, behave or even share the same views with me, which she certainly doesn’t. And yet love still flourishes.
@Tony: having two grown American children I can tell you that racism is not tearing apart the US, but it is in South Africa.
mphahlele // Aug 14, 2009 at 1:25 pm said -
“a typical example of racism is when a white person shoots at a black person and claim that he thought he was shooting at an animal”
I presume, of course, that you have evidence (pertaining to the prevailing lighting conditions, area – especially about so called ‘dead ground’ that the military would know about – and distance involved) that in every such case the white person clearly knew (or ought to have known) that he was shooting at a human being and not at an animal. If so, then the white person’s claim would clearly be false, rejected by the court, and he would be convicted of murder (or attempted murder if the victim did not die). In such a case, racism would clearly be the motive – and an aggravating feature to determine the just punishment. If not, the court would still have to investigate the circumstances and, if it found that the reasonable person in the shoes of the accused would have been more careful before firing, he would be convicted of culpable homicde (or, if the victim did not die, of negligent discharge of a fire arm in circumstances that he could have injured a person or property).
However, if you do not have such evidence at all, you are clearly racist in your outlook to state that, just because it was a white person that shot in the direction of a black person, his claim that he thought he was shooting at an animal is demonstrably false and therefore racist. What about black robbers killing white farmers while saying they are just killing ‘white pigs’ or ‘white boertjies’? Would that be justifiable, or is that black racism?
Kameraad, what do you mean by intellectual masturbation?
And if you would excuse my ignorance, I would greatly appreciate a definition of what constitutes a ‘normal question’.
Technically the Earth and the Sun revolves around each other …
Newton’s theory of universal gravitation.
but your point Alice37 // Aug 14, 2009 at 1:47 pm
concerning changing the status quo is understood …
But to consider it “a complete waste of time, energy and talent” when people are dying because of it and particularly the indifference of persons such as yourself allowing this state of affairs to continue and perpetuate, is sickening.
Leigh // Aug 14, 2009 at 2:05 pm
” …what constitutes a ‘normal question’.”
Would you give money to a white beggar?
If not, why?
If you lived next to an Indian family, would you lend them money?
Leigh – I´d define intectual maturbation as the act of arguing as complexly as possible, because its the argument in itself which is imporant and gratifying and not whether it bears any cemblace to actuality.
Common sense is not as much fun, besides using common sense makes it hard to hide away nonsensical ideological flights on fantacy.
To explain a normal or everyday question -
Falala – who conducted the survey for the Sunday Times, said the survey was aimed at measuring overt resentment, where people deliberately treated others in a way that was prejudicial and could be perceived as racism. Thats pretty simple and clear.
So I imagine the question would have been – “have you ever felt that you were treated to your detriment because of your race?”
Rather than, a question – say like – “are you part of a society where blacks cannot be racist because their bigotry cannot perpetuate the structurally entrenched ideology of race-superiority?”
Harold, with all respect, the post which you have directed towards me helps nothing. All you have done is penned questions which I suppose you mean to serve as examples of normal questions.
But your efforts tell me nothing about the core nature, content or quality of so-called ‘normal questions’.
So regrettably, I am still very much in the dark here. But perhaps someone else can find the key.
Then I suggest answering those questions and as all surveys demand, be truthful.
This discussion reminds me of the reason some psychologists appear to prefer the term “sociopath” over the label “psychopath”. The former shifts the blame away from the individual and towards society.
I have a dream.
That can get you shot.
Well, my post got everyone arguing which is a good thing. A few points:
(1) Many of the posts seems to have missed my point that I am NOT contending that some cannot hold prejudiced and bigoted views on race just because they happen to be defined by our culture as black. People defining themselves as black (or being defined as such by others) can indeed hold horrendously bigoted views on race questions (as on questions of gender, ethnicity, nationality or sexual orientation).
(2) My argument is rather that I believe “racism” can sometimes be different from racial prejudice and bigotry. This distinction seems important to me (not merely intellectual masturbation – not that there is anything wrong with masturbation, no matter what the Dutch Reformed Dominees might have told me) because it acknowledges – so it seems to me – the structural, institutional and discursive “reality” in our late capitalist, post-colonial, globalised world. In this world, the culture associated with whiteness is assumed naturally to be superior to any other and this is embedded in the way the world is structured, the way we (all of us) talk and think and do. It allows us to assume that the economic order is normal and deserved, and perpetuates a narrative which – with a few exceptions like Nelson Mandela – propagates and continually perpetuates the view that Western whiteness is the light while “the other” is the darkness. Even if individual black people become rich and powerful, they still live in a world that is structured around assumptions about the benevolence of whiteness and the evils of blackness. Thus equating white racism with black racial prejudice and bigotry is to impose a moral equivalence on black and white actors that I think helps to perpetuate deeply entrenched racist thinking, something that seems unethical to me. This does NOT absolve black people from responsibility for acts of cruelty, bigotry and prejudice, but it places it in the correct ethical context.
(3) When I talk about the need to challenge our essentialist notions of identity categories around race, gender and sexual orientation I am not suggesting that one should (or indeed ever can) obliterate difference in the world. Rather I am pleading for the problematisation of difference by saying differences between people are far more nuanced and multi-faceted than our very crude categories such as black and white, gay and straight, male and female, allow for. By blindly sticking to these categories as if they really say everything about who we are, we perpetuate the kind of hierarchical differences on which prejudice and bigotry thrives.
Kameraad, I take your definition of intellectual masturbation to be that it means to argue for the sake of arguing and not to achieve results of any practical value.
Even if that is true – and I am not sure that it is – the question becomes: can what one person deems a needless debate be a serious discussion aimed at the procurement of valuable, pragmatic answers to someone else? I tend to think so.
And with respect, I would differentiate between your two questions by saying that the second demands more thought than the first.
So if by ‘normal’ you mean questions that are straightforward, then I would ask that you label them thus as that would avoid the unfortunate implication that questions which demand more consideration are somehow abnormal.
And as for the questions in the present discussion which I have not answered (or the exchanges that I have not sought to join), I have merely chosen to enjoy the comments made by other bloggers (which I find very interesting) but I am content to just read the views of other people.
” …they cannot be racist because their bigotry cannot perpetuate the structurally entrenched ideology of race-superiority”.
Are other race groups then capable of racism such as Indians and Coloureds, due to them being perceived to having benefited slightly under Apartheid?
Mpahlele, according to you, the following well-publicised incident exemplifies racism. Please explain the racism inherent in the incident described, given that both hunter and hunted are white.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident
@ Harold
Newton Law of Universal Gravitation was supeceded by Einstein Law of Relativity.
“allowing this state of affairs to continue and perpetuate.”
It is precisely the indifference to the suffering of its people by power-hungry so-called leaders over centuries, whose sole aim is gain and to keep and expand their personal power and to enrich themselves at the expense of their citizens, that has made me cynical about human nature and attempts to fight it.
Good and evil exist in all people,and what sickens me is when its “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil”, and the choice is there for each individual to make, and you can see when evil is going to win because of bigotry, prejudice etc.
I would love to believe in President Zuma’s sentiments, to believe that the good that he is trying to do for the country will be sustainable. Perhaps mobilising the churches as he has done may have some influence on those “midnight” choices? My experience of life, though, tells me its going to be a long, hard road to change the emotional bigotry etc. to “best for us all” rationality.
Whether or not you answer the question here, you will when you arrive and almost any intersection in our country and will have to deliberate very quickly whether you have anything to give and if you do on what grounds is the person on the corner deserving of it.
Race supremacy need not be institutionalized or even rational – in most cases it isn’t.
“Even if individual black people become rich and powerful, they still live in a world that is structured around assumptions about the benevolence of whiteness and the evils of blackness.”
This point of view cannot be clearly illustrated by the statement by the Bok coach …
‘ … I’m not concerned about Ricky’s form. Look, if you go to a black mechanic and he doesn’t fix your car, you don’t go back. If you go to a white mechanic and he doesn’t fix your car, you go back and make sure he fixes the problem. What I am saying is give Ricky a chance.’
@Gwen, my comment was looking at racism in the south african context nt other jurisdictions. I’m afraid i can’t comment to what happens in other countries. I can only air my view in the context of south africa, because i have experienced and seen racist attacks on poor, innocent black people.
… this cannot be MORE clearly illustrated ….
@anonymous, I never suggested that the killing of white farmers is justifiable. I strongly reprobate such conduct. in your statement you seem to jumble crime and racism, those people who shoot and kill farmers are commiting acts crime and not as purpotedly put it acts of racism.
@Gwen: Your understanding of Mphahlele’s sentiments is flawed. Another example: a white farmer painted a black man with a white paint and said he wanted to turn him white. He said the colour black is ugly before him. The poor man died from inhaling the chemicals in the paint. Do you not think Whites are incapable of embracing us?
Haha … Aaarg Gwen, you know that was just plain stupidity, irrespective of the colour of the parties concerned.
” … because i have experienced and seen racist attacks on poor, innocent black people.”
Poor, innocent black SOUTH AFRICAN People, or poor innocent black people just in general?
And attacks and killings of white farmers is not racist in nature?
White people do not think with just one collective brian. Neither do black people or any other race for that matter.
I do not doubt that people are at least in part molded by circumstances and experiences. But with respect, some of the discussion or presentation of views here seems to overlook that people really can decide for themselves.
So Mabitsela, when you ask whether white people are capable of embracing black people, it seems one fair answer would be this: some white people can. Others demonstrate that they cannot. And although it could understandably be difficult to trust people of different origins for whatever reason, perhaps the best policy is to take people as they come.
Taking people as they come would be the best policy. Though I wish we wouldn’t be that casual when casting our vote.
@ mphahlele
“I still believe that black people are incapable of being racist and we are merely a reaction to racism by whites.”
Then how do you explain the racism practised by the leaders of newly independent African states against Jews, Arabs Asians, Whites and worst of all, tribalism – which is a form of racism- the murder of thousands of other Blacks, in the decades following independence?
Kameraad;
Why blacks are more racist towards Indians than Whites?
I work in a organisation which has over represantation of Indians, proportionally. Blacks had higher expectations from Indians and we ready to accept them as part of the larger group of Blacks but unfortunately majority of Indians decided to be opportunistic and placed themselves between whites and balcks. As a result if whites have to give up anything through AA or BEE they would rather push it towards the Indians to spite the Africans. In Gauteng it is a fact that Indians have a higher income average than both blacks and whites. When Indians are given positions or stakes via AA or BEE, they do not see themselves as having a responsibility to advance transformation hence they are seen as sell outs. The culture and religion differences makes it easier for a blacks hang around with whites than Indians. That is why it is also easier for a black dude to date a white than an Indian.
I have a holiday home in KZN south coast and the way Indians are taking advantage of africans in that area is questionable. This is pevelant in business and society at large. Mbongeni Ngema had a song that was banned about this.
Botswana vs Mozambique.
This can be explained by the fact that Botswana is a wealthier country than SA and therefore minimises chanses of S Africans seeing themselves better than the Botswanas. You go to varsities, the Tswana’s receive generous allowances from their government and are generally better off than their SA counter parts. I stayed in Mafikeng for a while and most of the Batswana were mainly coming to SA for shopping and they always go back. Unlike Moz who come here in search of better opportunities and some dont even want to go back. The Moz are mainly shangaans which is a minority marginalised group in SA whereas the Tswana are related to the Tswana’s of SA who have a higher cultural status in SA.
Pierre says
“(1) Many of the posts seems to have missed my point that I am NOT contending that some cannot hold prejudiced and bigoted views on race just because they happen to be defined by our culture as black. People defining themselves as black (or being defined as such by others) can indeed hold horrendously bigoted views on race questions (as on questions of gender, ethnicity, nationality or sexual orientation).”
OK Pierre, you say they can hold these views, do you also say they can *act* in bigoted ways?
Pierre you go on to say
“(2) My argument is rather that I believe “racism” can sometimes be different from racial prejudice and bigotry.”
May I ask how the objects, the suffers of this “racism” or racial prejucice and bigory” experience this difference?
If there is no difference you are just busying yourself with semantic games and sophistry, and intellectual mastrurbation.
Now I have nothing against masturbation myself, but by spanking the monkey its sure ain´t going to help us solve any pressing or real debates.
Mabitsela, it is Mpahlele’s example which is flawed, which is what I sought to demonstrate. The flaw is not cured by providing a new example, ad infinitum.
Wow this is abit heavy for a Friday hey?
Maybe you guys should have a drink and get over yourselfs and stop competing against each other whos more racist.
check this out maybe might put humanity in prospective here
http://www.hellofromearth.net/gliese581d/links/index.htm
you got 10 days left to send a message, maybe you can ask Gliese whos more racist.
@ Gwen
Can you please explicate the flaw in my example as you are further discombobulating me.
I prefer this than the superficial discussions on whether Shaik was actually driving or another member of the family and that he is well enough to give a spirited rebuke to the allegations.
it is also very relevant when you look back at the past week and see the numerous instances you had to contend with racism and merely let it slide.
Though in my opinion that is definitely a pointless exercise but I can only conclude that “they” would be more racist as there is not one documented case of a black person being abducted and anal -probed …
Or maybe they just wise enough never to mention it?
Gwebecimele, thanks for your answer.
And what you say proves my point. The xenophobes and racists amogst us are not irrational. They desern between Twanas and Mozambiquans for example based on rational judgement.
Pierre seems to think racism is some form of irrationality – some form of mental illness. But its wholely explainable.
If Pierre were to walk home late at night and on the one side of the road there’s three black young men and the other three Vietnamese women I bet he would choose to walk on the womens side.
There a crisis and in the UK, Spain and France and – surprise surprise – xenophobic attacks on foreigners are going up in working class areas (that normally vote left). It is not rocket science.
Similarly, without proper controls on our borders and without proper controls on access to RDP housing foreigners in this country will come under attack.
By the same token, its easy for a white that grew up in Green point and went on holiday each year to the ‘motherland’ to claim you have been against apartheid all your life.
Much easier than a working class white from Krugersdorp that has never seen Europe, and untill recently never contemplated to. These whites saw black rule as a direct threat to their priviledged position. Because it were.
And If even our ex-president was unpreturnbed by the deaths of 2000 black babies in Frere hospital ( actually he was upset , he fired the minister who pointed it out ) then its not surprising that not a single minsiter in thats presidents government would use state hospitals. Please don´t underesitmate people´s intelligence.
You don’t need a degree to get this.
Mpahlele, can you please un-discombobulate yourself sufficiently to explain why you think your example demonstrates racism of any kind, and on what basis it can be distinguished from my example (jurisdiction being a spurious and cowardly irrelevance).
“discombobulating” – To throw into a state of confusion.
You truly learn something everyday …
I do hope though its pronounced in the manner in which I think it is, or will it suffer the same fate as “de·ter·mined” and cir·cum·stanc·es.
I subscribe to the following definition: “Racism is discrimination of one group by another group for purposes of subjugation.” My hero Steven Bantu Biko subscribes to it as well.
So, unless one has the power to subjugate, one cannot be a racist.
Do Black people have that power to subjugate? Not yet, I think.
Do White people have that power to subjugate? Maybe, but maybe not anymore.
I almost forgot ad·o·les·cent.
“Do Black people have that power to subjugate? Not yet, I think.”
It has started though and picking up pace. Look no further than at our country’s “group of owls” and departments that services it.
Would nepotism not also fall into the category?
The appointment of mostly Zulu’s to essentially the spear-head positions of our government (police, highest court and intelligence) is clearly taking into account the affirmative action policies of our country seriously by our president.
Tony, it seems to me that the definition to which you subscribe is fairly close to the one which the Professor outlines in his piece. What are your thoughts on that?
I would not be surprised to see confirmation to the effect that you and the Professor cleave to very similar definitions of racism given that the Professor has also spoken highly of Steve Biko.
I would also add that Steve Biko was a visionary and a great credit to the South African people. In other words, you could do far worse in the hero department.
Well Prof: you probably realize by now that your blogs on racism get more response than on any other subject. Sort of confirms that folks want and need to discuss it.
Are blacks racist? Just ask a colored and they will tell you ‘yes!’. Blacks look down on coloreds, as do whites, ‘they are just drunks and beggars’, et al; well really, not all of them and certainly not my experience.
To think that anyone is not racist simply because they are poor or not established is nonsense. Coloreds, and I can speak from experience within relationship and community are fearful of blacks and its the fear in their case that produces bigotry as a defensive mechanism. Has anyone given thought to the idea that racism and bigotry and prejudice may also be produced by fear.
@Harold: Are we not subjugated now? Are we who are seen as ‘Whites’ , not now diminished, as true minority, even with all our wealth. Perhaps we need to accept the reality. I’m not suggesting white supremacy or white withdrawal, not at all. We have a lot to offer our brothers, our privilege having given us almost everything.
Daq vir daq, step by step Every positive increases the whole.
@Gwebecimele // Aug 14, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Great post. Say it like it is. Perhaps we all need to do this. I think its called ‘gettin real’. How else can we reach solution?
“THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.” — Kurt Vonnegut, from “Harrison Bergeron,” 1961.
Racism is discrimination – in any sense of the word – by one person against another person, which is based PURELY on that person’s RACE (otherwise it wouldn’t be racism).
To try and make racism into some technical academic socio-geo-eco-political whatever is simply, to my mind, a way for that person to justify his or her own prejudices while trying to point out the flaws of a different person’s prejudices.
If I refuse to sit next to a black person on a bus because he is black – nobody would disagree that this is racist. My decision was made soley based on his race. Duh. However, the problem comes in where I refuse to sit next to a black person because of something else – maybe he is morbidly obese and there is very little room on the chair for me, or maybe he is picking his nose and eating it repetitively, which makes me uncomfortable. There are people who would tell me that this too is racist, when in actual fact it has nothing to do with it – I simply dislike being squashed, or people with bad social mannerisms. That would go for any colour person.
Anybody is capable of hurting another person by discrimination based purely on race – it is hurtful because you have been judged negatively by somebody who doesn’t have a clue who you are. Anybody who says black people can’t be racist should read some of those earlier posts, which generalise the white community to an absurd extent, in an attempt to justify the writers’ own prejudices against white people.
Racism is truly an equal opportunity master – it is available to anybody who chooses to make use of it. If a black man refuses to eat dinner with me because I am white, the argument that this is not racism but an acceptable reaction to white racism in the past is simply ludicrous.
We will never ever start to overcome prejudice and discrimination until we all – black, white, indian, coloured, asian, whoever – are able to acknowledge our own potential for prejudice and discrimination. If you spend your time pointing out other people’s prejudices you’ll never get round to dealing with your own – and racism (along with all the other “isms”) will continue its existence ad infinitum.
@Peter // Aug 14, 2009 at 8:16 pm : Thanks for the reminder. Cheers
@The Big Slipper // Aug 14, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Another great post: Been reading yours for ages, now you have spoken most clearly.. Friday night right, few around… pleasant.
Thanks Sirjay
Prof, you and Cyndi Lauper… “Girls just wanna have fun” as does everyoone else.
Racial superiority and racism may depend on each other but all people can be racist. Black people are NOT excluded. I cannot, under any circumstances, agree with you.
By the way Prof: In my view, your best post ever.
I agree mostly with Pierre de Vos. Racism contains the necessary elements of: (i) discrimination, (2) and subjugation and (3) racial superiority. However, Eusebius is right, in so far, that theoretically all these elements,, of course, can be present in any racial group. I am sure that Pierre doesn’t deny that, except to say that at present these elements are not (yet) present among blacks, because the discourse is still mostly white. This is not simply about middle class and bank balances – it is much more about dominant discourses. Whites do not realise that they live in a white world – they take it mostly for granted – being black in the world is a different experience because of the prevailing privileges accrued to whites. These are very broad generalisations, but can be illustrated by something that was discussed very recently here.
For example: the Head of the Wits law school issues a statement that a black lecturer. Adv Malunga, has misrepresented the law as is taught at Wits. However, the same head does not make a statement when a white professor, David Unterhalter, misrepresents the law (last year in a Business Day letter arguing that the Constitution requires transparency and therefore the Constitutional court judges had to do what they did by publicising their complaints against Hlophe in the media). Whites will say – “don’t bring race into the issue” but race was already there – unwittingly or wittingly!
Having said that, I would like to bring in an additonal aspect into the debate. I hold the view that we should deal with power and subjugation more specifically, more localised, more on micro-levels -and look at how power is exercised at the smallest levels. In other words – a more Foucauldian analysis of power. I know this undermines (to a certain extent) my own argument, but I think we need to move away from the very general and ‘grand’ narratives of domination and subjugation whereby one group (be it black or women) is always the subjugated one and the other (white or males) always the dominant category or group.
And that would bring me closer to the line of thinking of Eusebius.
PS I haven’t read it – but heard Andile say on the radio this week that the latest Frank Talk has a cover story: “Blacks cannot be racists”.
Charlotte A, that was a tour de force and sure to get you a few slaps on the back on any campus from the left bank all the way to Stanford.
But I bet it will pass as a joke in Yeoville, Nairobi and Kigali.
It´s not that your incorrect. It’s just that its of no practical use.
For example, the Rwandan genocide was triggered in part by a fear by one group, who used to be subjugated by another group (a minority).
This group feared being subjugated again. They took up arms and butchered their potential opressors en masse.
Now according to your definition the perpetrators were not racist but the victims were. Perhaps. But that did not stop the “innocents” from committing one of the 20th centuries great genocides.
I also notice that yourself, Pierre, Leigh – all defenders of your position – all talk theory, but never reference reality.
Certainly not those pesky surveys that actually ask South Africans what they think.
I mean, the person on the street’s words might seem to indicate one thing, but actually – if you read post modern theory – its obvious that they are wrong. Why did we ever bother to ask?!
Of course if the respondents were all white you might have been inclined to take their word. At least whities have agency.
This is part of a piece I wrote I while ago -
When Googleling for information about the murder of lesbians in South Africa, I came across an American blog, named rather aptly – The Primary Contradiction. In a post titled ‘Rape and murder of South African lesbians‘ and tagged ‘white supremacy’ the following was written:
‘Like the United States, South Africa is a deeply misogynist, racist, and homophobic society, a consequence of its (our) legacy of white supremacy and apartheid. It has one of the highest per capita sexual violence rates in the world, and women who identify as lesbians or who are thought to be LGBT are routinely targeted for rape. Police are often unresponsive to this violence and insensitive to its victims. Perhaps not surprisingly, misogynist-homophobic violence often hits Black women and girls the hardest.
Despite the tremendous achievements that LBGT people have gained in South Africa over the years, most notably the legalization of same-sex marriage, homophobic hate crimes remain an ever-present threat in society, as they do here in the States. As people brainstorm strategies for combating the violence, the deeply entrenched remnants of colonialism that feed this violence cannot be ignored.’
Two commentators objected to the allusion that this hate crime was a white problem. A white South African lesbian (Landi) who said as much were cast as subliminally racist by one Julian and Yolanda.
Lerato, a South African black lesbian countered:
‘It is clear that you have no idea of what is happening in South Africa. The girls in question were my friends.The were murdered and brutally raped by BLACKS!!!!! Like I was gang raped – by BLACKS!! As Landi said it was cultural. Before you want to lift your opinion you should understand my community, my culture! It is an insult in South Africa to be GAY! Let go of the old excuse of rasism. Not everything in the world is about rasism or the whites.The only place where we can truly be “Lesbians” are amongst the white gay people. Between the Blacks we get spat on. We focus on the problems that we face as gays not as blacks.’
So yet again whities got type cast as the only racists in town.
Your theories might be earn you browny points, but they are far removed from every day experience.
Charlotte A // Aug 14, 2009 at 10:56 pm
“the Constitution requires transparency and therefore the Constitutional court judges had to do what they did by publicising their complaints against Hlophe in the media”
And this misrepresents the law how? This statement is surely not comparable to the statement that the direct testimony of two CJ’s is somehow heresay?
The gymnastics required to promote Hlope through the endless mess he creates, is mind boggling.
Niall Ferguson, renowned historian, is quoted as saying that the idea of biologically distinct races is “a lot of 19th-century pseudo-science”. However he points out that it is important to “understand better why the biologically nebulous concept of racial difference has proved so resilient”, using arguments from evolutionary psychology to suggest that the tendency to stigmatize “the Other” and treat them as a different species might be rooted in ancient human instincts favored by natural selection.
Any comments on that theory?
Kameraad Mhambi,
Thanks for your comments. As you correctly point out, the reality is far more complex than the theories we are positing. We can state, that seeing the world through lenses with a single focus on binary divides, be it the class struggle as per Marx, or the black/white colour line as per Steve Biko or the male domination of women as per Catherine McKinnon, has proven to present an one-dimensional picture. Nonetheless, place and time may dictate sensitivity to the possibility of understanding such a binary divide. In SA it will mean understanding the impact of racism – how it permeates thinking – there is no doubt that the racial superiority still plays a role.
Peter,
There is nothing in the Constitution or in the law in general that would prompt the Constitutional Court judges to do what they did – no legal duty whatsoever.
And from that you jump to conclude that I am promoting Hlophe. It may surprise you, but that is not my position at all. I am of the opinon that Hlophe is an intelligent, highly qualified person, but ethically challenged and therefore no suitable as a candidate for the position of judge of the Constitutional Court. However, I want to disentangle the real arguments against Hlophe from racist biases, which, I have no doubt, informs many who are have presented all kinds of Hlophephobic ‘arguments’ into the debate.
Alice37,
‘Othering’ seems a deeply ingrained human trait unfortunately. But I am not convinced about association your learned historian makes with “natural selection” .
I see that I should read my comments before submitting them in a hurry: ‘no’ is ‘not’ (suitable) and all the rest of the mistakes.
But just to add, Kameraad Mhambi, in our daily struggles we have a multiplicity of subject positions. And that’s why I said yesterday that we can do with a bit more Foucault to help us understand that we exercise power all the time – and that, while there is an exercise of power at the macro-level, in our everyday context we exercise power over others all the time – in relationships, at the workplace, at the soccer club etc. Somehow that is not adequately captured in most of the domination – subjugation radical or critical theories.
Well Charlotte A, I hope Pierre also comes to acknowledge that power is not only exercised “at the macro-level” as you put it.
I don’t mind if he chooses to rather call some racists people challenged with “racial prejudice and bigotry”, just as long as he realises bigots can be as nasty and deadly as racists.
And of course that he accords them the same attention as he does racists on this blog. Because in my opinion he has not. And thats what you get when you have your nose to deep in ideology.
In my view, from my experience: RACISM IS A MYTH, BUT RACE IS VERY REAL.
I say so, cause I think the entire debate about ‘racism’ is BS. Racism is an abstract concept, that is used as a political football to beat people over the head with by liberal do-gooders pretending to give a flying fuck about issues of race, but who don’t have the goddamn fucking balls to hold a brutally honest conversation about race!
Ask anyone who uses the term ‘racist’ or ‘racism’ against someone else; to define ‘racist’ and ‘racism’… and you see what I mean!
The ‘anti-racists’, all want goddamn goombaaya, lets all hold hands and pretend to be friends, and those of us who are pissed — justified or unjustified, rational or irrational — aren’t allowed to say we are angry, are not allowed to honourably express our anger, and blow off our steam, cause these povery pimps guarding every poor little nigger, kaffir, whitey, chink, wetback, crackers, jap, wog, etc’s little crystal ego’s. No, we are expected to pretend, and to behave like two-faced sycophantic hypocrits!
There are more genes of similarity between men and women, than there are between whites and blacks, or jews and slavs; are you suggesting Pierre that gender is a social construct???
Frankly, I disagree with Hlope on many things; but not on this: GOOD FOR HIM, TO BE HONEST ABOUT HOW HE FEELS! If he doesn;’t want to shake my hand, cause I am white! I ain’t got a problem with that! I appreciate his candour and his honesty! I respect him therefore! I’d much rather he was honest; than he pretended to like me, and giving me a fake handshake!
So, Justice Hlope’s got my vote on this one! At least I know, if he ever does shake my hand; it will be a sincere handshake!
How many people on this blog give fake, pretend, two faced, sycophant handshakes????
If so, on what moral perch are you standing, to criticise Justice Hlope for being honest?
Lara
Pierre, it is sad that you remain so firmly in the grip of American social science discourse, circa 1992. At the heart of that discourse is the vacuous claim that race is a “social construct.” (As if gravity, time and coffee are not likewise “social constructs.”)
To McKaiser cogent arguments I would add one pragmatic point: in its everyday usage the word “racism” is ambiguous. It can denote a subjective psychological state of mind. And it can refer to an ensemble of repressive and exclusory social practices which, as rightly point out, cannot be analysed independently of the power relations that both constitute and enable such practices.
You insist that the first of these two senses of the word – the mental state – should be labelled “bigotry,” not racism.
In principle, there is nothing wrong with that. We can always by stipulation narrow the ordinary meaning of word. But why bother? If you want to make the point that the crucial evil in our society is not so much a set of individual mental states , but rather skewed power relations configured upon “racial” lines, just use the perfectly understandable term: “Structural Racism.”
That way, we can move swiftly past the semantic points so beloved of the East Coast elites.
Lara, it is great to have you back and posting on this blog. I have missed your presence.
You seem to me to say that you would respect the candour and honesty of someone who openly held to racist views. Actually I am not really surprised by your stance given that you have in the past struck me as being averse to pretence.
But I would ask you this though: do you mean to say that the anger and frustration that might engender such behaviour are insurmountable fixtures? Or, do you accept that people ought to investigate the causes of such anger with a view to trying to overcome them?
I am so glad this post and discussion is fizzling out and going back under the proverbial carpet till it decides to rear its ugly head again sometime in the future.
I am also grateful that this racism/bigotry/prejudices which exist, remains merely as a social interaction manifestation and doesn’t spill over into horrific violence which it so easily can.
I do however wish to raise the issue of a sinister agenda which aims to allow minority race groups in our country what it feels like when someone has disregard for another’s mother-tongue language.
While there is a great expectation on blacks to be able to speak English almost fluently, there is none on Whites, Coloureds and Indians to even have a basic understanding of the indigenous language of your particular province. This might be a generalization to some but its a cold fact actually.
This apathy by minorities has result in a concerted effort by some blacks to bastardize many English words.
These state of affairs will result in the continuing of petty prejudices and keep the disease of racism alive and well-fed.
Kameraad.
What do you think of this qoute that is attributed to Mugabe. “Being born in a stable does not make you horse.” This is aresponse he gave to media when he was asked if whites can be African
Eusebius is a little dishonest black person, he knows something about ethic (that is what they thought him at university), he has no mind of his own though. He slots every new piece of information in this ethic machine lodged in his head and comes to the same conclusions irrespective of the issue at hand in the service of whiteness. He has indeed placed himself (umwittingly) as the chief spokesperson of whiteness, he reminds me of those blacks who helped whites catch blacks to slavery. i have written a 10 000 words piece (BLACKS CANT BE RACIST)- NEW FRANK TALK if interested get it at Clarkes books in Cape town or Exclusives books the Zone (Rosebank in Joburg) or Xarra book in new town. It was launched on the 08 august during the Jozi Book Fair. im tired of these new age house niggas…
Charlotte A — You are right to invoke Foucault. Pierre is oddly beholden to a theory of power that Foucault so emphatically rejected.
A. Toffler says power has 3 forms namely
violence
wealth
knowledge
In the earlier years violence and wars determined who was powerful and gradually wealth is becoming a stronger determining factor. In my earlier postings I mentioned that until Blacks aquire wealth(social status) equal or better than the Whites will not have the capacity to discriminate,oppress, subjugate etc.
What is commonly called, “Black Racism” should be termed “Response Racism” until Blacks have acquired at least 2 out the 3 forms of power. In many instances Blacks have to react to continous racism that haunt them at work, school, mall, stadium, neigbhourhood etc. IF someone attacks you, the immediate response is fightback although there is an option to run. The worst form of racism is the subtle one which is usually denied or can be justified. Naivity and fear can be used as excuses for some of our behaviours on both sides but with limited range.
A person may decide that they do not want to date outside their race, and that should not be a problem, its a choice depending on the reason. If the reason is that you see other races as inferior, substandard then you are racist. We may be philosophical about this and engage in intellectual masterbation but our daily choices and behaviour will perfectly reflect where we stand on these issues. The fact that minorities in this country do not see the need to learn an african language says a lot about how far are we from the rainbow nation. The white culture, western food, Roman Dutch law, TV content, unfriendly Golf Estates that is imposed on blacks everyday promotes the Response Racism that we see around us. Our names are mispelt and our culture of ubuntu is eroded by culture of greed, individualism and capitalism. Some blacks take advantage of this and loot together with rest of the elites. The false integration of the Majority into the minority will not work and the entitlement of the minority in setting up standards of acceptance for the majority is absurd. There is a systematic shift of Power and it is driven by wealth. Violence is easy to acquire especially if you are in majority. Knowledge may take a while to achieve.
@Gwebecimele,
Mugabe is wrong.
If he is right then there is no such thing as an African-American. All Black people in America, including President Obama, and all other non-native Americans would simply not be Americans.
This is absurd.
@ Lara Johnstone
Did you just headbutt your keybord for 10 mins or something? I hope this was bait, and all you are trying to do is illicit a response to your rant. The question about racism is a simple one and to have 95 + comments on it is quite astounding. Whatever definition of racism you want to get technical on is irrelevant. It is a question of language and subjective interpretation as is most social constructs. Racism is what it is understood to be by most people.
We all understand racism, bigotry and prejudice to be a form of discrimination based on some trait, be it biological or not. Sexism is discrimination based on gender. When you are prejudiced in any way and the reason for your prejudice is skin colour you are a racist. Not so difficult.
Let me say this slowly…if you see 80% of people in American jail are black where they make up less than 20% of the population and intuitively deduce having a black skin makes you a criminal you are a racist, ignorant and can make no useful contribution to humanity, science, statistics or the problems we share as a species coming to grips with our diversity. Maybe it would be more useful to look at social and psychological factors to explain those statistics and implement corrective policies. Black skin makes you black, and more resistant to UVB. Evolution. Science. Geographical dispersion of a species over 200,000 years. Natural selection.
You say racism is an abstract concept? What is your point? It affects society in a real way and when a white man kills a black man for the horrible sin of being black; your abstract concept has very real consequences in society, especially to the black guy who was on his bicycle on his way to the spaza to buy some Boxer.
Marriage is an abstract concept, that doesn’t make it any less real in society. Religion and god are both very abstract concepts with very real consequences when some fundamentalist blows himself up along with the infidels for some 70 something Virginians. Abstract becomes very real very quickly.
I will not even comment on your attempt at genetics. I will recommend that you look at your notes on genetic variation across gender and populations again. There was a time when Eugenics was a great movement. They raped Darwinism into a pseudo science and decided Jews are bad for the gene pool, you would have loved it!
You praise Hlope for his racist honesty and candor? Hitler was also pretty honest about his feelings towards the Jews. I would like to see you give Hlope The Oranje Book prize for Honesty when he herds you into a gas chamber because you are white. (He wanted to use electrocution, but Eskom said he’d have to wait till 2040 when they have spare capacity again)
All you want is for someone to say Hlope was right to say he doesn’t want to shake a white man’s hand so that you can sleep better at night for not wanting to shake a black man’s hand. You blame the problems of South Africa on skin colour….because it is just so easy isn’t it? Obviously Eskom, poor service delivery, crime and every other peril facing South Africa is causally connected to skin colour. This was extensively proven in the scientific, peer reviewed paper title “ Black people, electricity and crime – A gene’s eye view” Eugene et al. 1991. He also did a 2 other brilliant fiction novels “Horse Riding on Gravel” and “ Rooigrond, there and back again.”
I fight injustice wherever I find it, and it is a grave injustice to condone blatant racism as honesty or to imply only white people can be racist because of some asymmetry in the social hierarchy.
My mother was a straight-up-and-down racist of a very marked kind. She used to laugh at the shopping lists the cook would try to copy out. It would never have occurred to her to teach him to read. – AC Grayling
Hello Staff
My name is Raymond Carnation. I along with two other white Philadelphia Police Officer that opposed racism against African Americans in the Philadelphia Police Department was retaliated against and fired 1999. This occurred under the command of William Colarulo now a Chief Inspector in the Philadelphia Police department. In May of 2008 we won our Precedential racism case and the jury awarded us $10 Million Dollars. The case is Myrna Moore vs. The City Of Philadelphia NOS. 03-1465 and NOS. 03-1473. Feel free to Google the case and my name for a better understanding.
We are now experiencing extreme retaliation from this bias Federal Judge Mary A. McLaughlin, and still the City of Philadelphia after the verdict decision. This is now the second time we have been victimized by government agencies, the City of Philadelphia and now the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court. They are trying to keep a tight lid on the police racism problem in Philadelphia. I believe the media as well as the public should be aware of this problem and scandal in Philadelphia. We are seeking national attention on this matter and would like to see Oprah, Dateline, or 20/20 take a interest. I hope you and your staff will give us the opportunity and privilege to tell our story. Together we will be able to properly address police racism, the cover up, and the disturbing behavior of Federal Judge Mary A. McLaughlin. Below are article written on our case. Thank you so much for your time and concern. I hope to hear from you in the near future.
Warmest Regards,
Raymond Carnation
email around4life@aol.com
cell# (267) 231-8143
http://www.counterpunch.org/washington05162008.html
Racism in Police Departments Must Be on the National Agenda
By Keith Rushing
I hope that the U.S. Department of Justice in the Barack Obama administration on will he do what no ne have done before: take serious measures to end the rampant racism and abuse of power in police departments across America. OF if course, we can’t expect miracles in the span of…
URL to article: http://www .justdemocracy blog. org/?p=791
Dumisani
Do we have African-Chinese, German-Portuguese, Indian-American etc?
Why these double barrel names? If I migrate to Australia(God forbid) and give birth to a child, she/he will be African.
Gwebecimele // Aug 18, 2009 at 9:46 am
I think you need theropy and I dont think anyone should actually engage you, because you seem a bit to obsessed with racism, trying to find racism in “western foods”, Law, TV content and golf estates
how western foods is racist towards black people blows my mind but hey go with it gwebecimele clearly you onto a conspiracy with McDonalds.
” If I migrate to Australia(God forbid)”
why god forbid have you ever been to australia? its a very beautiful country actually or its a country full of white people and you dont want to go?
Why these double barrel names?
well ask your parents dumb ass they named you.
listen Gwebecimele go see a theropist please, by the way where is there capitialism in africa?
I think he meant double barrel names like african-american and the like.
i have gave myself time to read all your arguments and i will put this in simple english so that veryone can be capacited to understand.
for staters the comments made by my fellow comrade MPHAHLELE from my perspective seem to be more of a racist himself,it is an interesting quiestion that why did black people is south africa were attacking other black people fromour neirbouring contries like ZIMBABWE,MOZAMBIQUE ect.racism is not about economic power,or being poor,or being rich,or what political power does one have.racism in simlpe terms is the colour of your skin,i think it would be adequate to firstly ask ourselves the question of who initiated this deed?is it black people who wanted to reclaim their land,or is it white people who forcefully proclamined what was not theirs which then resulted to people getting killed?im sure one would find an answer to this,racism is not about theories of KARL MAX neither FRENDRICK ANGELS or eeven ADAM SMITH.i do realise that most of you on this discussion are shying away from the facts.yes it is true that we do have white people who also form part of the poorest of the poor,are you now going to say they are marginalised or you are going to say they did not benefit from the times of colonialism?we have black people who represent the most poor people you can ever find on planet earth,are you now going to say the black leaders in parliament are outcasting them or sidelining them because our leaders are racism?we have the new pop INDIANS which i would regard as semi-WHITE PEOPLE most of them are filthy rich,are i can asure you that they are the most racism people i know.we should not be afraid to state facts.i would agree to disagree with the notion that black people are incapable of being racist,black people can also be racist,but we must ask ourselves why black people are racist?im a student at ukzn and its a fact that in engineering faculty black students are being marginalised so the extent that they find it difficult to graduate as black engineeres,maybe i should establish a research institution that will only state facts even though i dont a PHD or MASTERS but we need to discuss such issues and come with better resolutions that will assist the entire country.anyway i would like to tank a person who initiated this discussion board in general CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING.LETS TRY TO BE CONSTRUCTIVE IN OUR DISCUSSIONS ITS GUD TO CRITISIZE BUT HAVE THE ABILITY TO GIVE SOLUTIONS.RACISM IS NOT DIFFICULT TO FIGHT AGAISNT BUT PEOPLE NEED TO STATE FACTS ABOUT IT AND THEN WE CAN ESTABLISH RESOLUTIONS.
Chris
I accept your ignorance. Let me assist you. I am not going to Australia neither will I be moving to Jamaica.
I am an African staying put in Africa helping it achieve its wishes. I have one passport and my loyalty is here. Race has nothing to do with it. I don’t have a double barrel name.
You see nothing wrong being in S. Africa and not being able to speak a local language. Yes I am unhappy with the content on TV(unafrican), food at canteens and resturants do not reflect our African Culture. The western culture imposed on African generates the Response Racism that I mentioned earlier.
My point is these double barrel races are an excuse for people who want to switch allegiance and race whenever is possible. Who knows we might have a triple barrel soon Chinese-African-Portuguese. You are what you, are accept it.
If I migrate I must think of the consequences for myself and generations to come. I can go to China and take part in opportunities there but I dont think I will ever be Chinese or Chinese-African for convinience.
I can challenge you to name one African resturant and you won’t( Don’t say Moyo’s, its not).
Gwebecimele // Aug 18, 2009 at 2:11 pm
we can stop with the double barrel names
what you call a cubian and some one from ice-land then? Ice cubes
hey what about greek and france? call them freeks
germans and jamacans =germacans
hey we can create a whole recipe here
“You see nothing wrong being in S. Africa and not being able to speak a local language.” I thought english was a local language?….lol trust me you dont wanna hear my zulu, ive seemed to have learnt all the swear words
Gwebecimele instead of being a little girl and bitching and moaning the whole time why we dont have enough african this and african that and its the westerns fault, um why dont you put your head together and upon a african business then, open up an african resturant then, go make african TV then. clearly theres a market for it… get off your bitchy lazy ass and go do it
I can see where Gwebecimele is coming from in many of his arguments.´Like:
“Being born in a stable does not make you horse.” This is aresponse he gave to media when he was asked if whites can be African’
It used to – and still does – irritate me no end when old farms with good old Boere names names like Renosterkop and Rietfontein are bought by developers and renamed things like Villadale, and to add insult into injury – built up with Tuscan monstrosities. To me it feels foreign.
But Afrikaners are foreign as well. We only we have been here longer. Colonists of a special kind as Mbeki once called us.
Now if I understand your grievance, I still have a problem with it.
Migration is as old as mankind itself.
The Normans invaded Britian to displace the Anglo Saxons and later to intermarry. Today there is no telling who are Norman and who are Anglo Saxon in Britain.
More recently and closer to home the Matabele’s had to flee for the lives from the rest of the Zulus. In the process they displaced the Shonas and colonised Southern Zimbabwe.
These things happen all the time and will happen in the future.
Ney York is in my opinion the most vibrant engergetic city in the world. You must be made of stone to visit it and not be impressend by its irrepressible divirsity and energy.
The problem with your postion is partly the company you keep. Those in the same stable as you are right wing bigots the world over (Including people like Hitler, Le Pen). Thousands of Africans every year try to migrate to Europe and there are plenty of Europeans that want to send them back. Often (not always) these people are very very nasty.
On the other side of this argument is the likes of Barack Obama, who sees himself as an American.
More recently more modern conservatives in places like the Netherlands have argued on different grounds. That is to say that race is unimportant, but that langauge and culture is.
In other words, you can be Ducth and black or Dutch and Indonesian, but you must be able to speak Ducth and have taken to heart the value of Ducth culture, ie, believe in democracy, freedom of speech, tolerance to homosexuality, womens equality and the like.
If this was your argument I would have a much harder time of finding fault with your current one based solely on race.
Do you know the story of the first whitey to call himself and Afrikaner (African)? It was a young bloke – born in SA – who was beaten by a Ducth magistrate with a cane for drunk and disorderly behaviour in Stellenbosch.
He told the Dutch magistrate defiantly, “you can’t beat me I am an Afrikaner.” And for that innocous line he was locked up, and deported to Australia. Never to see his only sister (who was mixed race) again.
Quite an inauspicious start to Afrikanerdom. But theres no doubt that there’s whites and Indians and colourds in SA that dearly love SA.
Talking about race, look whats going on in the USA.
http://gawker.com/5340220/town-hall-wingnuts-go-through-the-ideological-rabbit-hole
Black Americans are still looking for an identity. Pick combs, Kwanzaa – or maybe Kanesha, Lavetta, Latonda, Lashonda – you name it. Offspring branded for life – and what a damn shame at that. From “boy” to “colored” to “black” to “Negro” to “Afro” to “African-American” and so on, it’s all become a sad joke – just hype and more African-American jive. Unless a substantial majority of one’s ancestry is from a “black” African country along with other qualifying characteristics, they’ll never be considered to be an African,
I copied the above from another blog.
If Black- Americans are still confused then why the Whites think they can sleep and wake up as Africans.
Even Obamas’s Mom is not enough to make him White. I agree language, culture,customs, ancestry, committment etc is what is required for one to be African. One, two , three generations of mixed marriages will not be sufficient, hence I said the consequences of my choices will be felt through generations to come. I will not uproot my ancestry and I will die here. We must have space to be blacks without being labelled uncivilised and we are taking it back. We will set the standards as the majority and ours must be the prevailing culture. We can coexist with minorities but they must not impose.
Fair point, BUT – and this is a big but. “African” Americans are far more likely to have these kinds of identity problems you speak of in the US than Vietnamese, Lebanese, Turkish or Japanese Americans. And that is because unlike other American immigrants most were brought to the US against their will. That is an important difference.
It is also the reason why later African immigrants and those blacks decendant from slaves often don´t get on in the US. The former feeling lucky to be part of the US and the later still resenting their bitter legacy.
Even then, its clear that black Americans have a far greater sense of ownership and belonging than blacks in the UK seem to have.
Gwebecimele // Aug 19, 2009 at 11:57 am
Im from the states, trust me the whole racial issue is not an issue in the states black africans are doing extremely well for themselfs becuase of the equal distribution of education and that we mature enough to over come strong enough to do that, esp since we had a civil war about it
“We can coexist with minorities but they must not impose.”
Is this another threat?
My man, you a bit demented to be honest with you, that statement there of yours, is that the best form of wisdom you can come up with? your so called intelectual masturbation? Then your a lot stupid than I thought. I would hate to see you preach that crap to kids esp your own kids. You are the very thing that racism stands for and the very thing that should be wipped out of existance.
Do yourself a favor if you want intellectual masturbation listen to Bob Marley and Jimmy hendrix, these men seperate the difference between true wisdom true men to well to a piece of crap like you.
Your answer to racism is to fight back with more racism. damn what insight you have, please someone elect this guy to the plateform of stupidity
These two men that I mentioned sought to fight racism with music, becuase music cross’s borders and they believed that giving enough power through the message and the force that they sing it with would surpress racism. thats powerful
Racism can be cured im afriad stupidity cant and im afraid you fall into that group.
Chris
I hope you are taking your cure.
There are minorities all over the world and they coexist with majorities peacefully in most instance and that is what will happen here. You cant go to china as minority and get there and start changing culture, language, food, tv content etc and expetct no response.
The false rainbow nation of comprise is failing because it is base on shaky ground. I am trying to show you that the fundamentals are not in place, you can choose to ignore that if you want.
You better start packing for Aus, I believe they have space for you.
Oz? been there lovely, but if i wanna go back ill back to my own country
I think zim has a space for you? you can try your fundamentals there be easier for you, the minorities have been kicked out
was thinking heres some more names for you since you hate the whole double barrel name thing I mean if you get a person who is mixed from Hungry and africa that = Hungry African and thats just politicly wrong on all levels
so if we get some one who is mixed with Ukranian and congolese = Uglese or just ugly’s
or if someone is mixed with Taiwan and tibet = twit
still i like the thought of a jamacian and german = germacan, we would have a bunch of Nazi Rastafarians, that would be pretty cool, I bet the first country they would invade would be swaziland
(ba boom dissshh- thank you las Vegas im here every night)
lets keep it local how about a zulu and chinies = zulunies hey that would give a new dimension into kung fu? hey shaka fu
bottom line is your answer to racism is to fight it with self defence racism, in other words fight racism with racism, once again makes you model for stupidity so im sorry Mr African of the year but no one told you to buy a TV no one told you to eat western food and no one told you that you need to change your culture, in fact its promoted in law called “Customs law” indigeneous law and the constitution no one told you to stop dressing traditional african dress, Infact my surname is scottish and irish I actually wear a kilt in my “family clan name” being american and helding on to my family traditions.
so please spare the self loathing and bill shit and your outdated equations.
Thats me im done. racism is soooooo 1960′s
Pierre, a question. If “black people can… cannot be racist because their bigotry cannot perpetuate the structurally entrenched ideology of race-superiority,” what is the meaning of the following statement made by Mandela at the Rivonia treason trial? “I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination.” Surely Mandela, in one of his most famous statements, is then guilty of an intellectual absurdity? For if white domination is “structurally entrenched”–I actually read your argument as implying “overdetermined” or even “axiomatic under current circumstances”–then surely Mandela is claiming to have fought against a logical impossibility? Talk about wasted energy!
I agree with McKaiser and not with you on this particular point. Thanks for a great blog, in general though.
Glen, not wanting to sound like Bill Clinton but I suppose it depends on what your definition of domination is. If you refer narrowly to domination of one group by another then Mandela’s statement makes sense. If you refer to structural domination then it does not (well, at least not to me).
{{The sentiment was most obvious in Durban and academic and
activist Ashwin Desai said this was not surprising. “You
tend to compare yourself with somebody across the road from
you. Therefore the conflict between Africans and Indians happens
ironically in places where they live next to each other,”
he said.}}
Sure; that’s the claimed basis of Apartheid: separation reduces conflict.
So now that the conflict-separation has been removed, the one party has
separated themselves to distant continents. And the ones that remain can
demand exhorbitant prices for their resultingly scarcer skills.
Don’t you love the way the market works?
——-
mphahlele // Aug 14, 2009 at 1:25 pm wrote:
{{a typical example of racism is when a white person shoots at
a black person and claim that he thought he was shooting at
an animal }} OK, so that’s the (N+1)th definition of racism.
And BTW I really did [initially] think it was a child climbing
up, the paw-paw tree in Malawi – until I looked closer.
And I won’t accept that it’s neccessary to say “how are you”
like the bantu and afrikaaners do, “to show that we are all
humans”, before I ask ‘if this matata is going to Edenvale’.
===============
sirjay jonson // Aug 14, 2009 at 2:03 pm
{{By acknowledging that difference, rather than living with
the illusion we are the same or even similar, we have a better
chance of partnering well. }} Yes ! The mutual advantages,
particularly those based on the DIFFERENCES are what’s temporarily
delaying a Zim-like situation.
=======
Kameraad Mhambi // Aug 14, 2009 at 2:18 pm
{{ I’d define intectual maturbation as the act of arguing as
complexly as possible, because its the argument in itself which
is important and gratifying..}} Thanks for the bravery of raising this;
and related thereto, can someone point to inet forum/s where info. is
exchanged, vs. the wind-bag grand-standing here, which would help a
pro-se victim. Of course I greatly appreciate the Prof’s often included
tutorials, here.
———-
PdV wrote:
{{propagates and continually perpetuates the view that Western
whiteness is the light while “the other” is the darkness.}}
That’s decades outdated [SA limited] view. In the 70?80s the
US thought that Japan was ‘going to take over’, and now wrongly
gloat at the illusion that Japan has had little economic ‘growth’
for many years. IMO the topping-out of unsustainable ‘growth’ and
adjusting-back of the over-population is proof that Japan IS more
advanced. Also the US regularly acknowledges the superiority of
mongoloid-ethnic students. I support the US view [which has not been
hi-jacked by the loonies who sold 'race is just a social construct']
of broadly classifying human races as: negroid, caucasoid, mongaloid.
And it’s accepted that mongoloids have the highest IQ, [behind the
Aska??zi Jews] as IQ has been defined.
If *you* want to redefine it you must use a new name!
So ‘wit is die beste’ is just a hill-billy and backward SA view.
If SA’s want to advance their objective knowledge in the subject of
‘human race’, like with aviation, they should look to the US, for
guidance. After all, you only came out of Apartheid censorship
straight into leftist-PeeCee censureship, recently.
And you’re perpetuating the lager ignorance by building a ‘local
braaivleis’ blog instead of participating/promoting international
usenet group/s. BTW can someone point me to Bullard’s URL ?
+++++++++++++
{{Even if individual black people become rich and powerful,
they still live in a world that is structured around assumptions
about the benevolence of whiteness and the evils of blackness.}}
Because the evidence continually confirms that genders & races
differ – really. In Harry Wilson’s days you could bluff people in
Scotland and Switzerland villages, who had little worlds knowledge
[like the SA skaaps] that ‘negroids were the same except for colour’,
but today thinking people KNOW that Haitti has been independant for
over 200 years, whereas Findland has been for less than 100 years.
=============
PdV wrote: {{differences between people are far more nuanced and
multi-faceted than our very crude categories such as black and
white, — gay and straight, male and female, allow for.}}
Correct, and I want to admit a big mistake that I made.
In a project to harvest Mocambiquan timber [lefties call it
'exploit'], I had cause to learn how to identify tree species.
Only after a long time did I realise that SpeciesX does NOT
differ from SpecieY, like copper differs from aluminium [with
discreet electron counts]. Rather that SpeciesX and SpeciesY
both evolved/morphed from a common root. And each specie has it’s
spread. Which takes us back to the basis of the loonie assertion
that there are no human races, because “the genetic variations
within [socially contructed] races exceeds that between ‘races’”.
So because my genes are > 95% equal to a chicken’s I’m ….
…
{{we perpetuate the kind of hierarchical differences on which
prejudice and bigotry thrives.}}
No hierarchy !! What is your hierarchy for the table of elements ?
Why can’t you accept that kiddies have a different hierarchy of
admiration than old ladies do ? Or street-gangs vs. Dominees ?
————-
Gwebecimele // Aug 14, 2009 at 3:38 pm: gives good objective facts
which could help one to understand the ‘fuzzy higher questions’.
========
Kameraad Mhambi // Aug 15, 2009 at 12:05 am, fascinatingly exposes
some extreme US loonies. These are the types that started the
“Race is merely a social construct” theory.
===========
Since [Lara Johnstone // Aug 17, 2009 at 12:23 am] seems to
have the best understanding:{{RACISM IS A MYTH, BUT RACE IS
VERY REAL.}} she should go the next step, and ask herself ‘what
drives theses “two-faced sycophantic hypocrits”.
Some say it’s Christianity, which needs sin to sell forgiveness
as part of it’s bussiness plan. The Muslims, Budists, Hindus …
don’t have this PeeCee disease. But since it’s mostly centered in
the Anglo-world, I think the US resercher: Kevin McDonald’s
[I can't find a confirmation of the name right now] gives the best
explanation.
=====================
Michael Osborne // Aug 17, 2009 at 10:02 am = reflects and
refines my views on “East Coast elites”.
—————-
Harold Ferwood // Aug 17, 2009 at 10:46 am
{{While there is a great expectation on blacks to be able
to speak English almost fluently, there is none on Whites,
Coloureds and Indians to even have a basic understanding of the
indigenous language of your particular province.}}
This is a telling topic in itself and proves the impossibility
of symmetry. Blankes moet trek !
————
Gwebecimele // Aug 17, 2009 at 11:30 am wrote:
{{What do you think of this qoute that is attributed to
Mugabe. “Being born in a stable does not make you horse.” This
is aresponse he gave to media when he was asked if whites can
be African}} I say the blankes who haven’t left yet must wake up.
Zimbabwe is a full [african] generation more ‘advanced’ than Zanzi.
—————-
Glen Retief // Aug 19, 2009 at 10:21 pm wrote:
{{Mandela..famous statement..”I have fought against white
domination and I have fought against black domination.”
..an intellectual absurdity? }} Yes, good thinking.
But his rhetoric was effective ? In mathematics we’d say
that ‘dominance is a non-reflexive relation. It only ‘goes
in one direction’.
It may come as a shock to some but the underpinnings of any ideology are founded upon belief in the logic of the ideology’s moral arguments – No matter how illogical or immoral those arguments may be.
The ‘racist’ river flows both ways; it may come as a surprise to the ‘oppressed masses’, but that they spew as much effluent into the muddied waters of racial discord as the ‘white devil’. The only difference is the illogical perception, inclusive of denial, that somehow the oppressed masses have reached a pinnacle of moral perfection. In other words, “Their sh*& doesn’t stink”.