Back in 1995 I reluctantly supported the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), even though the legislation provided for the granting of full amnesty to those who committed abuses during the apartheid era. It was the time of Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s ”Rainbow Nation” (remember that phrase?), the Rugby World cup victory and “Madiba magic” and it seemed appropriate to support the TRC because it was going to deal, once and for all, with all the human rights abuses of the apartheid era. This would allow us to start afresh and to build a more just and fair society.
Those who committed heinous crimes in defense of (or in opposition to) apartheid could apply for and be granted amnesty - as long as the crimes were politically motivated, proportionate, and there was full disclosure by the person seeking amnesty. Those who did not apply for amnesty would be prosecuted and the process of re-establishing the Rule of Law would begin.
Disastrously, almost none of the apartheid era perpetrators who failed to apply for amnesty were ever prosecuted. There was, of course, the foot-washing Adriaan Vlok who cut a deal with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), and the catastrophic prosecution of Wouter Basson, but the Generals, the State Security bosses and the politicians who gave the orders to “permanently eliminate” opponents of apartheid never saw the inside of a courtroom.
Now, almost 15 years later, I am starting to think that the TRC was a disaster for South Africa. Although it did provide the opportunity for ordinary South Africans to tell their stories and to ventilate the horrors that preceded the so called “miracle” of 1994 and although this made it very difficult for ordinary white South Africans to dispute the evils of apartheid, the TRC seemed to have established a precedent. Why stick to the law when it is inconvenient to do so or when a political deal that undermines the law will cause fewer problems for a particular constituency?
That is why, on reflection, I do not support the decision of Professor Jonathan Jansen to interfere with the University of the Free State’s disciplinary procedures. Prof Jansen’s action mean that further disciplinary proceedings against the Reitz students involved in the making of the video will be dropped and those students expelled from campus will be allowed to return to finish their degrees. In his inaugural address Prof Jansen justified the decision as follows:
You see, the biggest mistake made in the analysis of Reitz is to explain the incident in terms of individual pathology. Yet to dismiss the video as a product of four bad apples is too easy an explanation. This video recording was preceded by a long series of racial incidents protesting racial integration especially in the residences of the university. Not all of these racially charged incidents made the press; in fact, had it not been for the public release of the video recording, no-one outside the university would have known about it. And few outside the campus realise that what is now regarded as an offensive video production in fact won an award from the residence for its content.
The question facing us, therefore, is a disturbing one, and it is this: What was it within the institution that made it possible for such an atrocity to be committed in the first place? And there are other questions. Why is it that one after another parent and colleague have come to tell me that the incident was, and I quote, “blown out of proportion?” Why is it that so many adults came to tell me that it was Oros, and not urine, as if it mattered in the simulated act of boys urinating into food? What must I make of the many representations to my office to inform me that the boys, I quote again, “loved the squeezas and brought them food from their parents’ farms?”
When the focus of analysis shifts from that of individual pathology to one of institutional culture, then it becomes clear that the problem of Reitz is not simply a problem of four racially troubled students. It is, without question, a problem of institutional complicity.
Jansen has a point, of course. Those four Reitz students are not the only racists in the Free State (or South Africa). They are the product of the white supremacists society in which they grew up and the University culture which allowed their prejudices to flourish. But we are all the products of our society and the institutions we belong to. The person holding up a grocery store or raping an 80 year old grandmother is also the product of our culture (as is Schabir Shaik).
(Given the vast material discrepancies between rich and poor, the dehumanising effect that some forms of poverty can have on communities, the social disintegration and fragmentation of some poor communities, and the racialised nature of the wealth gap, we should probably have more reason to ”understand” and forgive the behaviour of a young black man robbing a grocery store and to blame society for his actions than we have to “understand” the racism of the Reitz students.)
But Jansen seems to suggest – in the spirit of the TRC – that we should not always hold individuals personally responsible for their actions and that we should therefore not insist that the ordinary legal processes of a University dealing with the disciplining of students should run its course. This seems like a dangerous move. Why stop with the four white guys from Reitz?
Why not excuse the police officer who took a bribe because he wanted to pay for his daughter’s school fees? Why not drop disciplinary charges against a mid-level civil servant who rigged a tender because that civil servant had to keep up with his bond repayments? Why not drop corruption charges against the leader of a political party because it would be inconvenient to have a sitting President charged with corruption?
(And why do so many white South Africans – including DA leaders – always support forgiveness or leniency for the middle class white guys, but not for their black counterparts? Why do so many black South Africans – including many ANC leaders – always seem to support forgiveness and leniency for fellow black men and women, but not for their white counterparts? Do I smell some rank hypocrisy?)
I do not think I am particularly vengeful or that I formalistically and prissily stick to rules when they will have unjust consequences. Where someone made a mistake, owns up to it and pays the price, I would not want that person hounded for life. But I do believe in the Rule of Law. I also believe individuals should (at least to some degree) be held accountable for their actions – no matter to what degree those actions were the result of the upbringing and circumstances of the individual. If we do not hold individuals accountable and if we pick and choose when we want to follow the rules, we fundamentally undermine the Rule of Law and, hence, respect for the rules.
How can we begin to build a society in which individuals will respect each other and the rules put in place to regulate that society to the benefit of all, if we arbitrarily pick and choose which rules we wish to apply on the basis that those who broke the rules cannot help themselves?
Respect for the human dignity of all can only flourish when we try to understand why individuals behave the way they do, when we try to change the circumstances which led to that behaviour, but when we do not try to excuse that behaviour. If we condone too easily and do not hold individuals accountable for their actions, we disrespect the dignity of those who are the victims of the condoned behaviour and we create the circumstances for the recurrence of the very behaviour which has so grievously harmed our fellow countrymen and -women.
I think Jansen is ermerging as a fearless and visionary leader. I don’t see that the rule of law is at stake – the 4 still face criminal charges.
Jansen has a large institution to transform, and I think this step will do wonders in terms of challenging people to actually examine what they can do to bridge divides, rather than just screaming on for vengance re farm murders, people fed to lions etc and the neverending injustice of it all. Clearly those horrified (not just black people) by what happened, are being asked to forgive, but hopefully the impact of this act on the racists will lead to fundamental changes in their outlook. As Jansen says, the alternative is to go all middle east and bash our heads against a brick wall for the next 1000 years. Obviously, if the racists don’t see the light, this is where we are headed, but please lets try the alternatives first. Viva Jansen!!
The decision to forgive is a well advised one indeed. However, as Prof. De Vos has, correctly in my view, pointed out, the reasons which were advanced by the Vice-Chancellor were not very convincing. His reasons, as pointed out by Prof. De Vos, could be used to undermine the Rule of Law.
I tend to side with Peter @ October 21, 2009 at 11:08 am above that the fact that the criminal charges are still ongoing against the perpetrators should not be taken lightly. I think the V-C has struck a very good balance between these competing interests (bringing of perpetrators to justice and preventing an erosion of racial harmony in the University.
Well done to the Vice-Chancellor…
Pierre, please give examples of DA leaders seeking leniency for middle-class white guys. Thanks
Pierre is right.
Despite the superficial differences, the act of pretending to urinate on your cleaner’s food has quite a lot in common with:
(a) Human braaing at Vlakplaas.
(b) Raping 89 year old grannies.
Michael, on Hansie Cronje: “Douglas Gibson, the Democratic Alliance chief whip said: ‘What a sad ending this brilliant young man has had. Many South Africans mourned his downfall but many more will mourn his death.’”. Can’t imagine the DA making a statement about “mourning the downfall” of Julius Malema! When Mark Scott Crossley was released early on parole the DA was tjoepstil (but not when Shaik was released, obviously). If I had time I could probably come up with another 10 examples…..
“the foot-washing Adriaan Vlok”? Funny, I would have thought it to be an apt description for you.
Pierre, I did not see anything in Gibson’s statment seeking “leniency” for Cronje. And saying nothing re Crossely does not mean “supporting” leniency for him.
The one legitimate example you may have is Mark Thatcher – although even in that case I cannot recall anything said expressly supporting the deal done with the scoundrel.
Please see if you can produce actual examples. I do not deny they exist. I just cannot think of any.
In any event, there is nothing even approaching the carrying of Yengeni on the shoulders of his comrades to the gates of prison. So, any suggestion of equivalency seems unsupportable.
“The person ……raping an 80 year old grandmother” Funny how these incidents never make international headlines, even though it is quite a common activity here in SA.
I’m starting to enjoy the humour of this article. Maybe there is more to come?
Professor, is it possible if you could point me in the right direction as to find the reasons for your “reluctance” to support the TRC, obviously at any literature you have written or even stated at the time or after.
It would be highly appreciated as it would go far in helping me substantiate “the political solutions for legal issues” we as a country are so fond of and still practice today.
Pierre:
You seem to view the law and the Constitution as institutions capable of changing and molding a society, as institutions of “aspiration”–institutions that embody hopes and dreams, etc.
The problem is that the farther these institutions are from reality–the real nature of the society(which, you assert, is still tremendously racist and corrupt)– the more likely that they are to be ineffective, and, eventually, to come into disrespect and disrepute, in time tarnishing even the noble and lofty goals with the failure of these institutions to bring about the “change” embodied within them.
So maybe the problem is in the institutions and not society? After all, the society is what it is, right? How fast can you reasonably expect a society to change?
I tend to agree with those bloggers who say that the fact that the students still face criminal charges should be borne in mind. And I do see a decent measure of sense in one of Sne’s points insofar as it seems fair to say that the university should try to deal satisfactorily with more than just one concern. That is, ensuring that a substantial measure on concern is shown to the injured dignity of the victims is a very important object. But seeking to foster peaceful and healthy race relations at the institution is also an important goal.
The trouble is that I am not especially confident that the discontinuation of the disciplinary proceedings against the students will help the establishment of more amiable race relations. That is, what is it about that discontinuation that will help race relations at that university? Can we determine a rational connection between the decision on the one hand, and the object on the other? I am not so sure.
Perhaps the DA would have kept quiet of Shaik had also served two thirds of his sentence when released.
Back to the Jansen decision: It should be borne in mind that poor Prof Jansen is the man who must try to keep the university functional for the next couple of years. Without any intimate knowledge of that university, I can just think that it must be difficult to difuse racial tension there. Does anyone think the Reitz four will come back to complete their studies?
Pierre de Vos wrote: “Why do so many black South Africans – including many ANC leaders – always seem to support forgiveness and leniency for fellow black men and women, but not for their white counterparts?”
Perhaps not always: I really understood the ANC to seek forgiveness and leniency for Carl Niehaus!
As I made out a little earlier, I agree with the view that some sort of balancing exercise is appropriate here. That is to say, proper regard ought to be accorded to (a) the victims and (b) the promotion of harmonious racial coexistence.
But the foregoing description of a generally desirable principle notwithstanding, I do wonder whether the particular facts of this instance denote that Jansen has the balance wrong. I would like to know whether the four wrongdoers took any independent and unsolicited steps to demonstrate any contrition. That is, should it emerge that they went out of their way to show that they (a) appreciate the gravity of their transgressions and (b) are truly sorry, then I would regard the reasoning of Peter and Sne as being applicable to the prevailing circumstances with little reservation.
But without confirmation to the effect that these dodgy lads are better people for this experience, I think people might reasonably deduce that the university is giving these boys a pass and that reconciliation in this instance serves as a handy pretext. And I do not really see how that could militate in favour of racial harmony.
@ Pierre
What on earth are you saying?
“Why do so many black South Africans – including many ANC leaders – always seem to support forgiveness and leniency for fellow black men and women, but not for their white counterparts?”
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 21, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“In any event, there is nothing even approaching the carrying of Yengeni on the shoulders of his comrades to the gates of prison”.
Hey, that was the only way to make sure he went there (otherwise he may have run away)!
@ Pierre
Methinks that Brandon Carl Huntley may find some value in that comment!
Maggs Naidu says:
October 21, 2009 at 17:06 pm
I think he’ll get more from this …
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sport/article160527.ece
He’s probably shouting at the Canadians right now saying, “I TOLD YOU!! DIDN’T I TELL YOU???!!??”
Harold Ferwood says:
October 21, 2009 at 17:20 pm
Eish!
Bullet proof vests may be a great idea now that our police are on the shoot to kill directive.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 21, 2009 at 11:39 am
Wasn’t it braai and brandy and garlic shots – then go pickup pieces of body and then stack them again to be blown up?
It used to be a tradition in the SAS DRAKENSBERG officers’ mess to chew a whole clove of garlic and then down a stiff brandy and coke when you initiated into the wardroom or get your wings … The XO stopped it once he read the book about Vlakpaas … we now have to drink out of a spent shell some twisted concoction … kinda preferred the garlic gig
Maggs Naidu says:
October 21, 2009 at 17:24 pm
Since when will a Caucasian be a suspect?????? But I get you point … there is always the possibility of stray bullets …
Pierre, did Crossley really serve two-thirds of his sentence?
If so, I venture your DA non-comment point would carry even less weight.
I think Jansen has managed to get it right actually. For those of you who don’t instinctively presume this is because I’m a white racist, feel free to read on.
As mentioned, there is still a legal process underway against the four. They will still have to face the law – therefore the rule of law is still intact. Jansen’s position, as I see it, is to let that happen as it will and must – he wants his institution to be a place of reconciliation and forgiveness. Obviously this decision alone will not accomplish it, but he runs a university, not a court of law. Universities are meant to be places of education, and this is certainly sending a strong signal as to what he wants his students to learn.
The populist decision would have been to punish them as far as possible, exact retribution for their deeds. People like populism – that’s why there are now strikes and protests. It speaks to a larger issue – that black political groups still want retribution. It was the same with the Skierlik shooter. Jansen is showing that he does not want double retribution – they will be dealt with by the law, which is good and fine, but his institution will deal with the bigger issues, not the individuals. I think he’s a brave man, and something of a visionary in this case. It’s just a pity that the ANC, Cosatu and Student Groups are so adamant that these guys should be ostracised in every way possible – all this reaction will do at that university is further polarise the racial groupings on campus. It’s time people grew up.
I find this whole saga truly unfortunate and I have to say the step taken by Prof Jansen was very noble but misguided. I say this with the greatest of respect.
Generally, I share Leigh’s views on this issue. I am all for renciliation and all but I really believe that for there to be reconciliation the wrongdoer must have not only appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions but also taken steps to show his remorse. I do not know if these young men have actually shown any remorse – all I hear is justification that it was not urine but it was something else blah blah blah…
For Prof Jansen to think that there can be any reconciliation when it is only the “victim” that is of the view that something wrong happened is very naive indeed. I ask myself, what would stop those young men from repeating their act when it appears that they saw nothing wrong with what they did – and got an award for it nogal?!
Instead of achieving the racial harmony that Prof Jansen sought to achieve with his decision, I think he has infact done the opposite; especially when there is already a perception (whether well founded or not) that if you are white you can do anything to a black person and you will get away with it either because there is not enough evidence against you or in the name of reconciliation.
The Big Slipper says:
October 21, 2009 at 18:22 pm
This is the problem I have with white people in this country, whenever a black person has a legitmate concern he’s always asked to grow up as if he’s complaining simply because he’s immature – the white person being the mature one of course, after having committed these henious acts.
The excuse that there is a legal process taking place is nothing but a hogwash. Mark my words, those 4 will be acquitted, if not at trial on appeal. The criminal trial is nothing compared to a University DC – the test is much higher and I’m not convinced that the State will be able to prove anything.
Mzo says:
October 21, 2009 at 18:32 pm
“This is the problem I have with white people in this country. . . ”
Wow, the stereotyping is just unbelievable!
Michael says:
October 21, 2009 at 18:10 pm
“Pierre, did Crossley really serve two-thirds of his sentence?”
Actually he needed another 40 days to complete two thirds of his sentence, but only if you ignore the time he was incarcerated before sentence.
Chris, guilty as charged….trust me I try, very hard, not to have these stereotypical ideas but it’s kind of hard when you get ridiculous statements like the one made by The Big Slipper….it’s bad enough to have our mothers being laughed at in some sick videos without having to be told to “grow up”!!
I disagree with Prof Jansen’s decision, strongly so, but can someone please explain to me what powers Dr Nzimande has to interfere in this matter. I thought Universities were supposed to be autonomous. Damn politicians!!
I fully agree with Pierre de Vos’ criticism of Jonathan Jansen’s announcement (and the TRC). Moreover, I really can’t see who has to be reconciled with whom if you don’t even ask the victims about their opinion on the matter! This can’t be reconciliation! Do we see here an arrogant personality, albeit well-meaning, with a delusion of grandeur meting out (in)justice – who is send to save ‘het Volk’ and disentangle them (not all) from their racist roots.
But the Vice-Chancellor just forgot to consult the victims – now he wants to make amends on behalf of the perpetrators. But have the perpetrators expressed remorse and tried to restore justice? May be this is not regarded necessary at the UFS given the big applause from the people seated there when Jansen made his announcement … mindboggling, embarrasing. Does anyone honestly believe that problems can be solved – that racial harmony will follow unilaterally imposed decisions from the High Office of the VC?
Michael – while it is indeed unnecessary for PdV to prove that he is critical of the DA by silly references, PdV is in my opinion correct in saying that white South Africans – including the DA leaders – are more supportive and less critical when misdeeds of whites are forgiven. Why would the DA want to support Jansen in this matter? More generally, there has been a huge outcry from whites on Jacob Zuma, Shabir Shaik, Yengeni, Hlophe, but not when Wouter Basson, Vlok, Malan and all the other apartheid agents escaped justice for far greater sins. Even FW de Klerk later admitted that his earlier support for amnesty for perpetrators of heinous crimes had been a mistake.
PS on another matter
PdV – your statement in Tuesday’s article on the pardon for Shabir Shaik, is according to me incorrect
“This is the same executive whom the President himself has met on at least two occasions – although the President unfortunately misled Parliament about at least one of these meetings, denying that it took place.”
Sorry to be a bit of an irritating nitpicker, but, unless you are referring to something else, the fact was that JZ was asked whether a meeting with the company took place on a specific date – and it did not take place on that specific date, but a day or so later. So morally, I believe, he should have been more transparent in his answers, but legally he did not mislead parliament.
Can anyone enlighten me as to what the legal/moral view is of the argument below? Similar arguments can be formulated for many other pardons.
Getting a figure for compensation is probably always difficult. You can never compensate me for the death of my child, etc. In this case the perpetrators already receive some compensation (?!). Their future legal bill is slashed and their career options suddenly look brighter. What monetary value can you assign to this windfall? R100 000 pp or R1m pp? Although the University haven’t paid them a cent, Jansen’s pardon will help these guys financially a lot. Compared to this “compensation” of the perpetrators, how much then are the victims going to get?
@ Charlotte A
Basson and Malan were both let go by courts of law. No-one, including the DA, should impugn that.
I would expect the DA – and everyone else — to respect Zuma’s acquittal, if he had been duly tried,
I agree, though, that the DA should be critical of Vlok etc. getting off the hook, despite their failure to seek TRC amnesty.
The DA should be equally critical of ANC leaders’ non-prosecution, despite THEIR failure to seek amnesty.
@ M. D. Fassbinder (not RWF – I wonder about your choice of name; referencing a prolific German director of interesting films: I watched Die Ehe der Maria Braun and Lili Marlene and a few others, I loved his style of film making attempting to create some kind of european hollywood drama – with Hanna Schygulla and the beautiful Giancarlo Gianni, but how did he arrive through you in South Africa on a constitutional blog?)
Well, the courts are not as holy as you make them out to be – even if a court acquitted Basson that doesn’t mean that we can’t criticise such judgments!
@Mzo
I was just reading the statement from the Office of the Ministry of Higher Education – it is a mouth full! But I agree with it! I don’t think university autonomy precludes the Minister from calling upon the Vice-Chancellor to consult with all stakeholders and criticise “his personal crusade of reconciliation” ! I think we sometimes rely too heavily on the concept of autonomy! This is not about who teaches what and how and … universities don’t always deserve autonomy. As the Ministry indicates it was the Reitz incident that triggered a Ministerial Task team and inquiry into racism, discrimination and social cohesion in higher education. I don’t think the Minister is trying to stop the UFS from lifting the disciplinary proceedings, just criticising such a decision and calling upon the University to consult the workers and other stakeholders.
I was just reading the bloggers responses – and to those who defend the Reitz four or think along the lines of what Jansen said about the parents and colleagues who came to tell him that “it was blown out of proportion, I would like to say the following: what if it was your mother who was humiliated in this way by students?
And the clottish JSC is at it again. This time under a new captain – whose views and attitude seems even worse, see:
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=84652
Mzo says:
October 21, 2009 at 20:51 pm
I disagree with Prof Jansen’s decision, strongly so, but can someone please explain to me what powers Dr Nzimande has to interfere in this matter. I thought Universities were supposed to be autonomous. Damn politicians!!
———————————————————————————————————
Is he interfering or expressing an opinion?
Jansen may well have made a decision that is appropriate.
If, however, he did not take into consideration the views of the victims then it cannot possibly have been a properly considered decision.
p.s. My view is that this was really dastardly behaviour and went over the line of silly student antics and it has to be treated as such and those responsible should and must be brought to book. It however is not of such significance to occupy center stage now when there are really pressing issues that we really need to grapple with. For example http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-21-parliament-hears-of-poor-state-public-hospitals
If what Charlotte says is true and the Vice-Chancellor neglected to consult with the victims, then I would be convinced that the two interests referred to above by some bloggers were not balanced at all. I will take it even further and say that the decision is quite dreadful. That is, in the first place, the victim’s opinions have to be a great import as they were the ones who sustained direct injuries to their dignity. And secondly, it seems the four lads did not even bother to apologise (and let us be clear that half-hearted apologies would have been completely unsatisfactory). So in a nutshell, we can readily identify two strong reasons that denote that the decision serves as an example of disastrous judgment. I would actually love to hear Jansen’s defense of the decision given the circumstances set out above. Would he be able to defend the view that the decision to discontinue the disciplinary proceedings could reasonably encourage racial harmony? Let me just say that my doubts are grave indeed.
@ Big Slipper
I think it is sad that your post is glaringly silent on one score: you demonstrate no concern for the victims. That may be an innocent omission. If that is the case, then I apologise. But if you gave little thought to their plight, then your position strikes me as being incredibly insensitive.
And I doubt whether Jansen is a visionary. Had he been one, he would have opted for a course that stood a reasonable chance at fostering racial harmony and reconciliation. As things stand, I think the decision disproportionately favours the wrongdoers: four apparently unrepentant lads who saw fit to humiliate people. No Jansen is certainly not a visionary by any reasonable reckoning.
I agree with Maggs.
Yes, Jansen should not have dropped the charges — let the disciplinary committee show “compassion,” or whatever, if it sees fit. Also, the criminal charges should be pursued vigorously.
But to focus on the Reitz faux-urine incident, when there incomparably more severe outrages to which we could devote our scarce emotional (and newsprint/byte), resources, demonstrates a disturbing inability to grasp the scale and scope of the human tragedy in this country..
Just take a look at the piece that Maggs cited – desparate patients languishing in passageways for days, then being crammed three to a bed. These are horrors about which we can in principle do something; the stupidity of students is more enduring, albeit less harmful.
Charlotte A, you ask how I would feel if it was my mother that was humiliated at Reitz. My first response would be to hang the kids by their stupid necks until they were dead. But I hope that I would have the emotional maturity to understand that for just just one mother see her baby die in her arms, because of some screw-up in a state hospital, or because someone in the Department stole a computer — is incomparably worse than a thousand Reitz’s.
If you really care about the plight of the poor, spend 23 hours and 55 minutes working to change the health system — and the fact that our education system is consigning yet another generation to poverty. If you still have the energy, take the last five minutes to picket Jansen’s office, or send him hate mail, or something like that.
Michael Osborne says:
October 22, 2009 at 9:18 am
I disagree. Apartheid didn’t cause poverty but Racism did. If we do not want to see the return of Apartheid then we must do everything in our power to eradicate even the smallest sign of it … even if it exists in the Middle East – it can spread here faster than the H1N1 flu did …
Cape Times this morning had an article on a study saying how racist CT is … Trust me, this will be more damaging than an ineffective health system and will hamper our next generation from being self-confident South Africans.
Professor Jansen has obviously not lived in CT for a while and has forgotten his roots … shame on him!
Harold Ferwood says:
October 22, 2009 at 9:39 am
I read that unsurprising report http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091022090506645C265904.
I strongly disagree that our ineffective health system is a lesser consideration than Cape Town’s racism.
A non-racist society is worthless to dead people!
Maggs, I agree with you that there are a good many very disquieting realities in this country. And I agree also that we should grapple with them.
But my agreement with your grievance aside, I would just mention two points. First, the Professor introduced this topic for discussion. The responses to it have been largely relevant. I expect that the efforts of many of the bloggers to cleave to the subject matter of this discussion does not mean that they are unmindful of many of this country’s pressing concerns. So maybe you are being just a touch unfair.
Secondly, I think many people could find the behaviour of the four lads especially disturbing given that this instance is distinguishable from many other tragedies in a key respect: to improve our dreadful health care, the State needs reasources. But for this sad business with the Reitz four to have been avoided, all they needed to show was some respect.
“A non-racist society is worthless to dead people!”
But a racist society can cause dead people … ask Israel!
Harold is right.
Dead babies in broken incubators may tug at our heartstrings.
But the humiliation faced by black professionals at Waterfront restaurants is ultimately more damaging to our country’s future.
Get rid of this kind of racism, and poverty will melt away.
Leigh says:
October 22, 2009 at 10:09 am
“So maybe you are being just a touch unfair” – how so?
My comment was not in relation to this topic but in respect of the public outcry including, but not exclusively, that of our Minister of Higher Education as pointed out by Mzo.
“to improve our dreadful health care, the State needs reasources” – the state needs to first manage the resources that it has better. Each day there’s more and more emerging on how badly that had been done.
“But the humiliation faced by black professionals at Waterfront restaurants is ultimately more damaging to our country’s future.”
Not to mention the blatant racism meted out to the black working and lower income classes when going to suburban convenient stores and told to wait until the white patrons are served … But the Professor may be able to tell us more about the restaurant discriminatory climate.
The maxim “give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him to fish and he can feed himself for a lifetime” must be taken a bit further in South Africa.
“Make a man believe he can catch a fish, he’ll teach and feed himself”
I think everyone here underestimate the damage that racism, even in its smallest doses can cause. Its destroys self-belief, talent and even competence! – Its effects are basically incalculable.
Maggs, apologies. Perhaps this next comment will be consistent with your grievance: our politicians should spare more time for desperate situations.
As to your further point of our civil service making better use of existing resources, I will not disagree. But one could say, I think, that causing our public officials to manage reasources better would take much in the way of coordinated effort. But deciding to show respect to another human being is something an individual can do for herself. The Reitz four each had that election. They opted for despicable behaviour and that is one feature of this occurence that I find justifies the public outcry. Moreover, as many bloggers would probably agree, race relations are an ever-present concern in this country. And this incident (along with the absence of apology and apparently concern by the univerity for the black victims) is perhaps indicative of the extent to which this country is fighting a loosing battle against prejudices.
I think Prof Jansen deserves a chance to test his theories. I am not aware of any other process that is working at this moment. I do, however, agree that these individuals should take responsibility for their actions, but it could be done in a more positive manner like community service for instance. Turn the shame into a learning experience for all. Prof Jansen is rising above the petty masses and I am very interested to see what he can accomplish.
I have to laugh at the rule of law statements though. These individuals will become the next poster boys for all that is wrong in this country and the odds of a fair trial are stacked heavily against them (case in point being the Waterkloof-4 trial). The law will not escape politics. Let’s see…
It pains me to mention that if one watches the Reitz video is would strike one as strange as to how willing the victims were in their participation in the activities. It leave me concluding that even if those boys had told them that they had urinated in the dish they were suppose to have eaten, that even if they had declined then, that just a bit more stern persuasion by those White BOYS would let any sign of resistance crumble.
Maggs, Grown-up and obviously mature women being dictated to by barely out of adolescence men!!!??!! Trust me, this isn’t uncommon – Its just not recorded!!! To some degree I pity the victims and would of preferred that the tape had never surfaced and they wouldn’t of been any the wiser about the abuse they experienced – Ignorance is truly bliss.
@ Michael
With all respect, I disagree; the point is that white South Africans tend to trivialise racism, which, to me, weakens the authenticity of their voice on other matters. It is not about comparing Reitz with worse things that are happening in society. Indeed, the health system, the state of the education system, the collapse of municipalities are matters of grave concern to all (black and white) and should be so. It is about selectivity and white defensiveness on racism. Leigh is correct – Pierre’s blog was about Reitz and so were the responses!
Jansen’s decision will provoke a national outcry!
Charles, I am glad that you see the need for the four lads to take responsibility for their actions. But is there a difference between merely taking responsibility for one’s actions on the one hand, and truly appreciating the nature of one’s conduct on the other? I think so.
For reconciliation to be possible, I think that there would have to be some indication that those boys have come to see their behaviour as wrongful and that they regret it. Community service may accord them chances to pull their heads out of their arses. But given that they have not tendered any unsolicited indications of remorse, I doubt that they will take them. In short, Jansen’s approach is misconceived at the very least inasmuch as he has not properly appreciated the roles of the complainants and the wrongdoers in such instances. That is, if we were to ask him whether he has really tried to understand (a) how the victims feel and (b), what the wrongdoer’s have learnt, I doubt whether he would be able to proffer answers. His solution is paternalistic and divorced from the views of the players most intimately involved in this affair.
Leigh says:
October 22, 2009 at 10:35 am
“… along with the absence of apology and apparently concern by the univerity for the black victims…”
Leigh, I don’t think this comment is true. Please read Prof Janson’s speech, and you will see why I say so.
This notion of reconciliation must come to an immediate stop! Its clear that the TRC failed dismally in its objective and yet is used as an “olive-leaf” at every turn to justify very broad atrocities which would be reminiscent of Apartheid. If a collective apology was not forthcoming from whites then these boys are not obligated either. And thus excludes the victims of even considering giving in to any guilt of forgiving them as well.
Chris, I meant apology by the four students. Sorry, I should have made that clear. As for the apparent lack of concern, did Jansen consult with the victims?
It seems that noby knows, except Prof Jansen and the victims. All I can say is if he didn’t he has a lot to learn.
Chris, agreed.
In the clarifying statement the University of the Free State said that it had spoken to the NEHAWU representatives of the victims about Janse’s gesture but NOT personally to the victims themselves. This seems rather shocking.
Of course many, many tragic and disgusting things happen in South Africa of which neglect and mismanagement at hospitals is a prime example. Juxtaposing the racism incident at Reitz with what happened at Reitz – as Michael does – seems to me to completely miss the point, as if history and context and emotions play no role (and should play no role) in how we think and how we experience the world and how happy we are as human beings. Why is it that research consistently find that black people – even very poor black people – are more optimistic about South Africa’s future than rich white people are? To say we should not focus on Reitz and should rather talk about the failures of the black dominated government is an emotional response (let us avoid talk about racism implicating whites and let us look at how black people are stuffing up things). This emotional response is however, presented as a neutral and logical response devoid of political commitments, views about the world or experience: IT IS SAID JUST TO BE LOGIC. But that is rubbish – it presupposes that any of us can, pshycopath-like, escape the emotional feelings and perceptions which are the product of our history and our views about the state of the world around us. We can surely talk about Reitz because for a majority of South Africans this IS very, very important. At least just as important as babies dying needlessly in hospital. To deny this is to deny or minimise the importance that the dehumanising effects that apartheid had on many South Africans; it is to deny what they lived and felt and suffered. It is to deny history and to deny feeling and humanity.
We can talk about Reitz AND babies dying. Both are important.
Professor, I agree with you that university’s failure to communicate directly with the victims is pretty shocking. As Mzo pointed out a little earlier, I do not think Jansen’s heart was in the wrong place. And I will even commend him for taking steps with a view to fostering reconciliation – however misguided those steps may be. But it seems to me that he might really have sought to mediate between the parties most intimately involved in this very sorry affair. Moreover, it seems to me as if he expected remarkably little from the four wrongdoers in that none of them has tendered even a public apology or sought to demonstrate appreciation of wrongfulness. I think many people will be deeply disappointed.
@ Charlotte A
Yes, you are right, many whites trivialise everyday discrimination; they are existentially incapable of emphasing with something so removed from their personal experience. That was the great success of apartheid.
Conversely, many whites (and blacks), would rather focus on racism as a set of subjective attitudes. These can be fixed, in principle, with proper education, and appropriate punishment. Much more difficult are the structural issues that no amount of personal adjustment will address.
For understandable reasons, many black and white people (including Gucci-clad Mr Malema), are more comfortable focusing on the forms of discrimination still faced by the middle class, than on poverty.
(This debate tracks the old debate between the nationalists, who saw racism as the main problem, and the Marxists, who saw race as but a proxy for class. I think the Marxists predicted precisely what has happened since 1994.)
The Big Slipper says:
October 21, 2009 at 18:22 pm
It is the unfortunate comments like this one which are taking this country backwards in terms of race relations. Your post is so condescending that it has lost its (intended?) meaning. You must try to realized the nature of people you are conveying your views to before you post posts like that one you have posted above. You are a quintessential example of someone who, though he may have a valid point to argue, but puts the point in such a manner that the recipients of same cringe instead of listening to the point. Get off your high horse sir and join as mere mortals.
@ Mzo says:
October 21, 2009 at 18:32 pm
The unfortunate aspect of your post is that it suggests that the University DC should be used to make political statements despite it being an institution of higher learning. Once again, I reiterate that you have taken less cognizance of the fact that criminal proceedings are pending in court against the Reitz Four. Whether there is a reasonably high probability that they will be acquitted is a problem of our criminal justice system not a failure on the part of the University.
@ Charlotte A says:
October 21, 2009 at 21:01 pm
I am indeed sad that in coming to the decision, the VC did not consult with the alleged victims. However, continuing with the DC charges would have dragged the matter on for longer and the relevant alleged victims would have to give evidence on the incident and I suspect that would not have been ok for them. And now to rub salt in the wound, even if the University DC found them guilty and suspended them, the alleged victims would get no satisfaction whatsoever except in a form of damages in a civil court of law. Jansen has negated this necessity by offering to tender compensation in his speech. I hope that Jansen has consulted the victims. Otherwise, that aspect of his decision making would be a blunder.
@ Pierre De Vos says:
October 22, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I agree…
emphasing = empathising
@ Michael Osborne
I don’t disagree with the sentiments you expressed at 13.11 today save to say that whites – we – should stop trying to defend the indefensible (racism)or belittle the experience of racism. At the same time, of course, we should address the structural issues (unfortunately, in this country race is still a structural issue and deeply entrenched not only in the psyche, but in the political economy of SA society as well) – we should address mismanagement of public goods and poverty, which is so pervasive in society, and racism – these are not mutually exclusive issues.
The Marxists predicted …and so did Frantz Fanon
Ultimately it is also about whites accepting the hurt and anger of blacks, and whites learning from black experiences and trying to understand other frames of references than their own.
It saddens me that the VC (such an honourable man) would have fallen into the trap of undermining his intellect by trusting his instinct and need to please at the expense of the victims. Whether he later corrects his initial gesture it has already dealt a massive blow to his reputation. The problem with our intellectuals is that they tend to be too knowledgeable for their own good. Thinking that what they perceive is just and can present sound arguments in support, it therefore, translates to mean they are wiser.
His arguments are truly academic and well presented. But they are devoid of feeling and as such are insensitive and I would venture to say unwise. He has turned a criminal matter that all descent folks agree it was idiotic into an unwelcome national debate and by default has now elevated this to immeasurable heights. For black compatriots this is another proof that you do not put a man of colour in a position of responsibility and ask him to fix your ache and confront your detractors. He would first want to appease his colonial master (in this case their descendants) before he deals with your problem. Interestingly, a significant number of white compatriots applaud this gesture and there have been calls to submit the VC’s name to be in line for some prestigious award in Norway. I, for one, would commend the Prof for a well thought through post and hope in our future arguments we learn to be intolerent of meaningless gestures and concentrate not only of speaking truth to power, but to ourselves, introspectively so.
Agree. But the bad publicity they got and are getting serves as an ongoing punishment. In fairness, I wish this coverage, condemnation and public fleecing could apply to all who sin and transgress and are caught doing so.
I have observed the debate around this sad issue rage with a lot of amusement. I wish to state categorically that I have a lot of respect for the Prof and I have followed his artcles in the press with a lot of interest and in the majority of cases I have not agreed with his views but nonetheless he has educated me in other instances. I would venture to say that he sometimes comes out as very apologetic and yearning to please. I dont know if one would term this a liberal attitude. I would advise him to gauge the mood of the nation before taking such insesitive actions. Professor the wound is still fresh, please let us heal within the process of our laws. We dont need another truth commission( I did not agree with the first one )
The Prof missed the plot.as much as I understand the well meaning he had but the way he has gone about it is totaly disrespecting to the victims and many other people.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 22, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“We can talk about Reitz AND babies dying. Both are important”.
That about captures the essence of my thinking in the comment I made earlier which Michael built on.
It sad and most unfortunate that while we have some schools shut down this close to the exam as a result of water being cut off to them, there is silence from the custodians of our education system and commentators of note.
This and other horrible outrages that are ongoing, need at least the same, if note a whole lot more, public outcry than the callous student antics – not much is emerging in that regard.
@ Charlotte A:
The following have been said to be among the multifarious manifestations of racism in South Africa:
(a) Complaints about corruption.
(b) Saying that HIV causes AIDS.
(c) The testing of Caster Semenya.
(d) Saying that SA faces a rape crisis (Charlene Smith).
(e) Nadine Gordimer.
(f) Black articled clerks being required to make photo-copies.
Who is guilty of trivialisation in such instances?
@ Maggs
@ Pierre
Yes, we can indeed talk about Reitz AND babies dying.
But only if we have all the time in the world, infinite capacity for outrage, a billion gigabytes or our hard drive — and no sense of priority or balance or impact or proportion.
Charlotte A says:
October 22, 2009 at 14:10 pm
Ultimately it is also about whites accepting the hurt and anger of blacks, and whites learning from black experiences and trying to understand other frames of references than their own.
———————————————————————————————————
Indeed – that will certainly be a step in the right direction.
Often when interacting on this blog with people, it’s almost like we live in different dimensions.
Many people see our “rainbow nation” as having been giving up some privileges (exclusive beaches, private entrances to public facilities, racially exclusive residential suburbs and business districts and the like) and that’s the end all and be all, of all that went before.
It’s going to take “accepting the hurt and anger of blacks” and a whole lot more to begin to contemplate the structural and systemic impact of the inequity and iniquity of all that went before and still materially defines our present.
Michael Osborne says:
October 22, 2009 at 19:37 pm
@ Maggs
@ Pierre
Yes, we can indeed talk about Reitz AND babies dying.
But only if we have all the time in the world, infinite capacity for outrage, a billion gigabytes or our hard drive — and no sense of priority or balance or impact or proportion.
——————————————————————————————————
It’s that important to me that I will make the time and buy the hard drives that are needed.
Unless there are better solutions being offered, all we have to deal with these terrible things is to raise it where, when and as often and as loudly as we can.
Leaving it be is not an option!
OK Maggs:
Remember, we live a global village now. So spare some thoughts (without ranking or priority of any kind!), for the disinherited Aleutians, the Tibetan monks, the displaced Maori, the sodomised altar boys, the marsh Arabs, the Maronite Christians, the shunned Mormons, the Sunni of Iran, the Shi’a of Iraq, and the small but influential gay community in the Vatican
Goodnight, and good luck.
Prof Jansen must not use the pain of individuals as a tool to demostrate his mysterius compassion. The students do not have any remorse. They could have humbled themselves before their victims, with their thorny tails tucked between their legs, heads hanging in shame and muttered their regret for their despicable racist hurt.
They are criminals who must face the wrath of the law. No amount of money will erase the indignity suffered by those mothers, who still experience torment from racists in that instititution. I do not think Prof had to express appreciation of his appointment by insensativity to the victims.
He is adamant about his stance on the matter. The State must press on with the charges. The mothers are still entitled to sue the University for failure to take action against the students. THe settlement is nothing. They must be held both criminally and civily liable for their conduct.
He must go burn the purported (fake)remorse correspondence or frame it for his utopian compassion.
Ishmael is right.
I demand that these so-called Reitz boys be strung from a tree with piano wire. Then, before they are dead, these ghoulish bigots shall be taken down. Their stomachs shall be sliced (breast to public bone), with a sharp knife. Their steaming entrails shall be ripped from their bellies before their mothers’ eyes. And behold, their limbs shall be bound to wild Maluti horses. And their pale white bodies shall then be torn asunder. The horses shall be caused to gallop, without pause for rest or water, to the four corners of the Kingdom – where, the stinking remains of these vile racists shall be interred in pits of stinking filth. And yea, these Afrikaaners’ crushed heads shall impaled on spikes, one on each corner of the campus.
The week after that, we deal with the skimmers of ARV money from Free State hospitals. They will be sternly reprimanded. And assigned smaller vehicles.
Michael Osborne says:
October 22, 2009 at 19:57 pm
I will leave those bigger things to those who have the energy to deal with it.
My interest is in my country.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 22, 2009 at 20:40 pm
Shaik’s spear?
Michael Osborne, my point it is that your view that there is “no sense of priority or balance or impact or proportion” when one focuses on both issues equally, is based on the fact that you have a very particular history and experience. You are not black and poor. You have not been treated all your life as a sub-human being not only by individual people but by a system, you have not lived under a system where your basic sense of dignity and humanity has been under constant attack because of your race. You have not seen your parents humiliated by people who – with the full might and prestige of the state and the law – have lorded it over everyone who are like you. Ethically there is an emotional perspective required to really come to grips with and properly weigh the magnitude of certain events and their importance for the complete well-being of citizens. If you ask a Holocaust survivor whether it is more important to save a Jewish baby from HIV infection or to deal with the acts of neiu-Nazi skinheads, I suspect many would have difficulty in choosing. Many white South Africans – because they have not experienced the dehumanising effects of a system of race-superiority – cannot seem to understand the emotions involved. Trying to discount such emotions as “irrational” or “wrong” is based on the assumption that one’s own commitments are not also influenced by another set of emotions, a set of emotions experienced as so dominant in your life that they are invisible to yourself.
ISHMAEL MALALE says: “they are criminals”. In the past you have referred to the principle that in law everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I have maintained that this is correct but that it does not preclude us from making ethical judgments about someone. You have disagreed. Do I take it that you have conme around to my position, namely, that while only a court can find an indicvidual guilty of a crime, as ordinary citizens we have a right and a duty to make judgments about people based on the available evidence and that this does not infringe the constitutional right of anyone to be presumed innocent until proven guilty BY A COURT OF LAW?
@ Pierre
Pierre, it is a pity you did not read the first paragraph of my 13:11 posting:
“[M]any whites trivialise everyday discrimination; they are existentially incapable of emphasing with something so removed from their personal experience. That was the great success of apartheid.”
Does this sound familiar?
Pierre, to take up your example of Jewish victims: I cannot agree that the choice as framed is at all difficult. If the choice is between (a) attending urgently to the needs of a single infant who is almost certain to die immediately, and (b) punishing skinheads (for conduct that does not immediately threaten any lives, but which does manifest attitudes that may have grave longer terms results), I think it would just be morally perverse not to save the baby.
And yes, I know that in an ideal world, this would not be an either/or situation. But it is not an ideal world. The human rights commission only sits for so many hours in the day; you and I only have a limited time to write the nonsense we write. Etc.
Finally, I assume we agree that Mbeki’s denialism, and calling activists “racist” is based upon certain emotive beliefs, that in turn reflect his life experiences. Does that mean we cannot, as persons who have never been part of a people dismissed as “filthy”, criticise Mbeki on this point?
Prof, I have passed a judgment in this case, which I ought not to have done, if I were a judge. I have gravitated to your position. Ordinary persons would be entitled to express their subjective views on societal views and not behave like judges in the courtroom.
I probably might have been deeply defensive in the polemics of the heydays of our bashing. I felt you were always brutal on Zuma as to reflect deep-deated hatred. I had to protect the fort. There are fundamental thoughts which percolated in my brain though.
Jansen as all of us are disentitled for expressing forgiveness and reconciliation as such act belongs to the affected parties. I do think that that boya ought to have been allowed to face their victims and express their feelings towards the sad experience. Such an effort might have provided an opportunity for the mothers to ventilate their anger, a cathartic experience which could result in reconciliation.
The Prof has spoilt the possibility by imposing professorial reconciliation. What I suspect is an inaugural present to the conservative Council of Free State. A celebratory gesture for investiture in a deeply devided student and academic community.
All sad and done. The students must not be written off the books of social existence. As they evolve the will realise the greater good of humanity.
I think the court process will expose them to the pain of their victims and possibly evince some element of regret and atonement for their acts which have revitalised racial mistrust and division in our fragile democratic society. I deeply believe in corrective discipline.
Jansen has not meaningfully appreciated the social and legal ramifications of his action. The university is now liable for the acts of the students by the condonement of such despicable harassment of workers by the four students.
Our country deserves to hear the voices of the students and the workers. THat may open a trajectory of softening of stances on the matter.
Prof, my militancy is a product influences of bloggers here! At times I thought this blog permits of ventilation of racial prejudices normally unexpressed in our daily existence.
Michael Osborne says:
October 23, 2009 at 9:54 am
I don’t not think the Professor implied that the decision could go either way
” … suspect many would have difficulty in choosing. ”
But seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses is a luxury that many of us haven’t been that privileged of receiving in this lifetime – so your view is quite forgivable
But I can vouch that once that Jewish baby is saved from a potential HIV infection, those Nazi-skinheads are gonna have first-hand knowledge of Armageddon!
ISHMAEL MALALE says:
October 23, 2009 at 10:05 am
“I do think that that boya ought to have been allowed to face their victims and express their feelings towards the sad experience. Such an effort might have provided an opportunity for the mothers to ventilate their anger, a cathartic experience which could result in reconciliation”.
Surely that can only happen once the courts have gone through this matter?
Harold, you are wrong.
Pierre used the words, re the alternative possibilities, “I suspect many would have difficulty in choosing.”
Yes, Ishmael, I suspect few South Africans have ever had to endure such venomous racism as has been expressed lately on this blog.
I still maintain those Reitz boys do not deserve a “trial,” or any kind of disciplinary proceedings. As Pres Zum has said, the law is often seems to care for criminals more than it does for their victims.
The white liberals may accuse me of a medieval sensibility. I do not care. There is only one proper response to the Reitz racism: a gruesome death.
Michael Osborne says:
October 23, 2009 at 10:41 am
I suggest we leave it to the Professor himself to clarify.
Be that as it may, do you honestly believe that there are some that would actually give some thought to the “morally perverse” nature of their conduct? Zizi is at this very moment is still searching the net to justify his stance on the HIV/AIDS non-relationship.
I also do recall you being an advocate for ethics rather than morality which is usually the backing of the greater good rather than any absolutes.
I think that the Reitz four matter deserves public attention. And I would say also that the victims certainly deserve our sympathy. Having some outrageously insensitive youths get you to labour under the apprehension that you were eating food that had come into contact with urine, and having those same wretched boys get you to eat dog food amounts to an incredibly dehumanising ordeal.
But having acknowledged the foregoing, I must say that I am not averse to Michael’s point, the general thrust of which I understand thus: we have limited resources. One of those resources is our capacity for sympathy and principled outrage. Another class of resources are material resources such as money and bandwidth. Given the limitations with which we contend, it makes a fair measure of sense to reserve our resources for those people who need help the most. At the core of it, it makes some good sense to compare the circumstances of the people to whom we may devote some of our resources and on the strength of those comparisons, we could conclude a hierarchy of hardships. Those people who stand to suffer the greatest measure of harm, or those people in need of immediate attention, should be seen to first.
If I have the right of Michael’s point then I have to say that it is hardly controversial. Picture, if you will, a crew of medical staff at the seen of a military action. Their troops came under heavy fire and many were wounded. Some sustained superficial injuries which were painful no doubt but not critical. Others found themselves fighting for their lives. With sufficent resources, the doctors and nurses could see to everyone. And I would like to assume that they would want to. But if the staff could not attend to every wounded trooper at once, well then regrettably, some patients would have to wait despite their discomfort so that those in the most desperate predicaments could be attended to.
I would say that where the prevailing circumstances permit, we can address more than one disheartening occurence. But as I read Michael’s point, one relevant (although apparently unpopular) question is: which occurence should have pride of place?
So fair play Michael. A little critcal I would say with all respect. But a fair enough point nonetheless
seen = scene
BTW, what is the proof that the Reitz four acted with racists intent? Were racist epithets used?
If not, I do not see why we all assume this was an instance of “racism.” After all, degrading initiations are, so I understand, part and parcel of male, and especially some classes of Afrikaner, student life. And it seems to me these little thugs would not hesitate to degrade or humiliate anyone, quite irrespective of their race.
I don’t think you should use Military analogies as the conventions of contemporary ethical principles which you no doubt prescribe to. The recent saga involving the defence force members is a case in point in how their superiors have little regard for them and neither does civil society.
Concepts such as “acceptable losses” are not officially instructed but it does run a thread through our tuition when embarking on combat training and even fire and safety protocols. I would surmise that the same tutelage would be given to military medical personnel and to consider putting a couple of exceptions on their Hippocratic oath. Hopefully Dr Basson will pen some literature on this in the years to come. Also your reliance on medical situations are not good examples of the conflict that would exist.
So no matter how you might try to construct the hypothetical environment the decision making process in real time, is very unpredictable. That is why we found it necessary to create the “reasonable person” – which comes into play after the fact.
Michael Osborne, you seem to suggest racism requires intention. This is not what our Constitution and the PEPUDA require. Most people who has any understanding of racism would also disagree with this view. Often racism is not intentional. The CC says one should look at the EFFECT, and not the INTENTION. . . .
Leigh, thanks, you re-stated well what I was trying to say. But we have already seen the answer many times over: this is not like a military triage type situation. We CAN talk about both outrages.
But as you and I have said, the fact is that we all have a short moral attention span. And everyone understands that, to take a wildly disconnected anaology, the discrimination faced by blacks in South Africa in the 1970’s was more severe, in terms of impact, effect, and by every other measure, than the discrimination faced, for example, by Catholics in Ulster in the same period.
Pierre, I take your point that as a matter of law one need not show intent. But in litigation, one looks at “effect” though disparate impact.
How does one measure disparate impact in the Reitz situation? By comparing how the boys would, notionally, have treated servants of other colours? I would guess that they would have been very happy to humiliate white people who cleaned their toilets too. So, in that case, it is a matter of “classism” rather than racism, I suppose.
And certainly, a new Afrikaaner male who joined their little “club” would have been degraded just as severely. Not so?
Michael Osborne says:
October 23, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Nice try.
These are racist thugs who think that the dignity of Black people is worth little to none.
All these attempts at deflection is not going to make their disgusting behaviour less racist.
It does seem as if suggestions to the effect that the four cretins were motivated by racism are based on assumption. That is, if it is true to say that degrading initiations are part of Afrikaner student life, and that those boys might well have shown similar contempt to white people, well the the notion that they were motivated by racism is enfeebled somewhat.
Of course it could be the case that state of race relations at the institution supports the view that the boys were animated by racism. But as mentioned earlier, it could also be that they would have done these wretched things to white folks too. So it seems to me that we might have bases from which to draw competing inferences which are, at least to me, both quite reasonable. And if Michael and I are not tendering complete nonesense, could it be that we would do well to suspend for the time being any suggestions that the admittedly thuggish boys were motivated racism? You know, maybe so.
I have said before that the likelihood that the Reitz boys had no intention of being racist or that the workers involved even felt degraded or humiliated in the manner in which they were laughing and being somewhat jovial in their participation with the sordid saga. I think that both parties only came to the realization once the world saw the video and highlighted its racist nature. This is the only reason why I see no apology has been forthcoming. And even on the part of the victims they might be feigning hurt. But that goes to the core of this!! That there is still mass ignorance of your inherent worth and dignity and that there are some who hold to the ideology of “universal superiority” both consciously and sub.
Is Michael Osbourne maybe not Dan Roodt?
Maggs, is it your assumption that, because these boys are Afrikaaners at a traditionally Afrikaans university they must have been animated by racism? This sounds a little fishy to me, although it may be empirically defensible …
Take a psychopath who on Monday kills a Chinese. on Tuesda ,a Jew, and on Wednesday an African. Do you say he is a misogynist on Monday, then an anti-Semite, then an (anti-black) racist?
Would it not help your case, in showing him to be the latter, if he ONLY ever killed black people?
Counter-intuitive though it may be, does not an allegation of personal racism require a certain conscious singling-out?
@ Professor and Michael
Thank you for clarifying (one by way of explanation and the other by means of acceptance of legal principle) the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence that is applicable to this discussion. I was not aware of it.
Michael makes out that when it comes to litigation, one ‘looks at effect through disparate impact’. To my mind, and drawing from Michael’s useful exposition, it seems one might ask, ‘might a white person have suffered the same treatment as the black people at the hands of those four young brutes?’ If so, then is the contention that there was a racist effect not unsustainable? Possibly so.
@ Maggs
With all respect Maggs, I think Michael did more than merely ‘try’. That is, if behaviour would not be exclusively prejudicial in effect to a certain people (or at least more prejudicial to that race than to others), then how can one claim racist effect? So I tend to think that Michael succeeded.
Michael
Are all Chinese women? Or only on Mondays?
You know, sometimes the discussions here can get so wanky. Is there anyone reading this blog or in fact living in South Africa, who can seriously and genuinely say the believe that the actions of the Reitz four were not motivated by racism, whether overt or subliminal? Sometimes you lawyers need to step out from among the trees and take a look at the wood.
Michael,
With due respect, you are not going to seriously suggest that those little bastards would have done the same thing to white people!! If you do, then I have to wonder if you really know anything about the history of SA in the last couple of decades.
You can theorise all you like and make all the analogies, the fact of the matter is that those WHITE boys did what they did to BLACK people. If we are to follow your highly philosophical logic, we will never know what really went through those rascals’ minds (coz I for one will never take whatever they say seriously) – how then do we solve the issue if we spent out time, bytes etc contemplating that actually, they could not have been motivated by racism when we all know the surrounding circumstances lead to an irresistible inference that they were motivated by nothing else but RACISM?
Being too philosophical and sophisticated can sometimes lead one to be blind to some of the raw facts before him. Ask former Pres Mbeki!!
Sarah Palin says:
October 23, 2009 at 13:45 pm
My point exactly!!
Yes, I would have to agree with you, Leigh. Ruth First, Albie Sachs and Donald Woods all suffered horribly at the hands of the apartheid state. Clearly, therefore, the state was not a racist one.
@ Leigh
Then I am confused of what the Reitz Boys are guilty of then?
Nope! I must reiterate then that if Michael has almost been successful in proving that they would of subjected almost anyone, including same-age compatriots, to that sort of treatment – they are more screwed-up than I thought before!!! I even think that anyone, other than the actual victims, would of given even a slight whimper of injustice! The boys directed their devious fantasies at possibly the most vulnerable group in our society – mature black women!!! There is no doubt this is tainted with racism!!
Sarah Palin says:
October 23, 2009 at 13:45 pm
You like that glass of water being thrown in the face of a hysterical person.
BRILLIANT!!!!!
Harold says:
October 23, 2009 at 13:55pm
‘Then I am confused of what the Reitz Boys are guilty of then?’
Harold, conduct does not have to be racist in order for it to be injurious. That is, a thug like one of the Reitz four can belittle someone but it is possible that the facts, if critically and not just emotionally construed, could disclose no racism.
Mzo, I must challenge you directly here:
Is it your belief that, in the SA context, every time a white person does something harmful/degrading to a black person (or vice versa), that is presumptively an instance of racism? (Please answer this question directly, if you can.)
You are naive if you do not understand that there are just some people in the world who are natural bullies. Such a a creature will humiliate anyone over whom he has power, whether that be a servant, a women, a foreigner, a first year student, an employee, even an animal.
A personal anecdote, if I may: I worked overseas for a while in an environment in which “aliens” are sometimes not treated with much respect. My experience was that one senior person to whom I reported was treating me badly. Rude, dismissive, disrespectful, etc. My first inclination was to think he despised because I was a foreigner. Then I observed that he treated all of his underlings badly — including those that were NOT foreign.
Was I wrong to conclude that he was not a bigot in the way he treated me, but rather just a nasty person all round? What would your disagnosis have been?
Michael, the white people cleaning their toilets (and washing their underpants) might well have been their mothers. I bet you they would not have treated their own mothers like this. Your contention that the treatment could possibly be exclusively class and not race based defy 300 years of history and experience. It might well be that class and race intersected in this case (something the constitution recognises), but given our history and the nature of the humiliation inflicted on the women (who were much older than they were) and given what we know about the nature of racism and how it is linked (far, far more than class) to feelings of superiority, it is inconceivable that those boys were not animated by race. I assume you make the contrary argument purely for own amusement and not because you really believe it. I assume its part of a strategy you often deploy to argue a-morally (as if we can dissect issues without reliance on any ethical framework, norms or values), but that leads you (in my mind at least) to an a-contextual and illogical position, a kind of nihilism, that I do not find intellectually attractive myself.
Leigh says:
October 23, 2009 at 14:04 pm
Then couldn’t it also be construed that the workers gave voluntary consent to being belittled?
“Such a a creature will humiliate anyone over whom he has power, whether that be a servant, a women, a foreigner, a first year student, an employee, even an animal.”
yes .. but there were 4 of these “creatures” and all YOUNG WHITE AFRIKAANERS. I do not recall any of the examples you’ve given coming forward and claiming that they received abuse of this nature from the boys.
Leigh says:
October 23, 2009 at 14:04 pm
OK, let’s all admit that we’ve been very emotional, what are these “facts” that we have to critically construe?
Do you care to comment on Sarah’s post at 13:50pm?
Sarah, thank you for your spirited contribution. It is such vigour that often makes exchanges on this blog very enjoyable.
You attempt to undermine my position thus: the apartheid government harmed some white people and so, on my logic, it was not racist.
My actual position is this: I am not sure it has been shown that the Reitz four acted with racist intent – even though on the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence, this issue seems to be irrelevant. And I am also not sure the effect as regards the Reitz four instance was racist as I am not sure, on the facts, that only black people would have been singled out for such a degrading experience.
Sachs, First and Woods would not have been harmed by the apartheid government had they not opposed it. That is, they did not suffer because of their skin colour. They suffered because of their actions. So with all respect, your point does not refute or even undermine my point given that the effects of the apartheid government’s actions were at once (a) racist in that people of colour (especially black people) suffered because of their races and (b), at times harmful to some whites not because of their colour but because of their behaviour.
@ Michael
An excellent post at 14:12pm
Pierre, it is quite naughty of you to raise the issue of whether the “boys” would treat their own mothers the way they treated their actual victims. You know as well as I do that, in violent, intensely patriarchal societies, young men do appear, in some weird way, pretend to hold their mothers in special regard. (That is why curses directed at the young man’s mother are the most explosive. )
But that aside, do you not know children who, when the opportunity arises, are quite happy to humiliate their parents, sometimes in ways that are subtle, and sometimes not? (See King Lear for a literary exemplar of the particular sadism of children to their parents.)
See also the reports on the hidden crime of “elder abuse” in the U.S.: horrific brutality inflicted upon parents.)
Michael Osborne says:
October 23, 2009 at 14:12 pm
“Is it your belief that, in the SA context, every time a white person does something harmful/degrading to a black person (or vice versa), that is presumptively an instance of racism? (Please answer this question directly, if you can.)”
No, it is not. Just that in this particular case I can find no other explanation other than this was a racist act. I am very much aware of bullies but I think it would be “naive” to think that the Reitz boys were simply just bullies, nothing more.
On your foreign experience (maybe that’s where you were when some of us experienced some of the racists acts in SA), it would appear that you failed to look at the surrounding circumstaces and simply formed a misguided opinion. Could it be that your error back then may have contributed to your apparent and unwarranted over cautious approach – afterall, we all see things based on our experiences!!
Leigh says:
October 23, 2009 at 14:30 pm
If this is so then we are to believe that “a nasty person all round” is objectively abusive and disrespectful in equal proportions and at no time increases his prejudices to a particular party.
“That is why curses directed at the young man’s mother are the most explosive … ”
In fact its explosive in a different way these days when a young man’s mother is cursed – usually with a retort of how much did she charge!
@ Harold
“I do not recall any of the examples you’ve given coming forward and claiming that they received abuse of this nature from the boys.”
The “moffies” the thugs no doubt taunted at high school. The younger students they humiliate in initiation ceremonies. The girlfriends that they emotionally or physically abuse. Their own parents, that their exploited and manipulated. Their younger brothers, whom they relentlessly teased.
None of these are very likely to come forward, Harold, and be splashed in headlines around the world.
I think that Leigh put it well. Racism has of course special resonance in this country. But it is not the only sin in the litany of human evil. In fact, it is perhaps just one manifestation of a deeper flaw in the human character — the tendency to exploit power, the sadism, the need for domination that seems to be an inherent part of the human character.
I am finding this argument rather absurd. The existence of racism does not depend on a finding that the racists would only have ever treated the persons of another race in a degrading way. Showing that those boys would have been nasty to others, does not not really make ANY contribution to the question of whether they acted in a racist manner. Racism can be deduced from context. Here the context was the following: there were young white men who humiliated older black women. Those men came from a culture which brought us apartheid. They have never been found guilty of degrading older white women and they are said to be “good boys” who only had some fun. They acted towards the women as if those women were inferior and not fully human. That context make them racist. The humiliation was deliberate. The difference in power relations were partly based on the race of the protagonists. Arguing otherwise is really preposterous.
Mzo, thanks for a thoughful response.
Ironically, it is perhaps I (who might think am defending the boys), that holds them in much lower regard than you do.
My assumption is that they are incredibly immature brats, drunken, lazy and oafiss, perhaps with sadistic tendencies, who would treat anyone within their power very badly, if they got the chance.
But maybe they are really (apart from this instance), good kids who respect their parents, study hard, help old (white), women across the street, and love their dogs.
(Even Hiltler loved his Alsatian, whom he interestingly named “Blondie.”)
Mzo, thank you for your response.
You ask me to identify those facts which I say we ought to critically construe.
One of our fellow bloggers suggested earlier that degrading initiations are often part and parcel of Afrikaner student life. If this is true, then thugs like the Reitz four might have demeaned some white people like younger or otherwise vulnerable students.
My sibling’s school had a boarding house. And the degradation of students (in ways that are not so far off from Reitz) was known to happen. And that had nothing to do with race. Sometimes the victims were white and sometimes they were of other races. And sometimes the thugs were blacks and whites working in tandem.
When I say we should critically explore the facts before jumping to untested conclusions, I mean roughly this: let us suspend our assumptions. Let us rule out other possbilities before we hotly submit that the actions of the Reitz cretins was unmistakably racist.
Not that Michael needs anyone to stand up for him, but I do want to say this in his defense: this is not the first time that Michael has, at least to my mind, skillfully argued an unpopular line and taken a lot of heat for it. I am sure that if someone could successfully rebut his contentions, Michael would concede. But it seems to me that people sometimes reject what he says through distaste and not by way of cogent refutation. That is unfair. I will say also that I greatly appreciate his presence on this blog given that through a combination of both his skill and learning, he can take discussions into interesting directions.
“The “moffies” the thugs no doubt taunted at high school. The younger students they humiliate in initiation ceremonies. The girlfriends that they emotionally or physically abuse. Their own parents, that their exploited and manipulated. Their younger brothers, whom they relentlessly teased.”
Jeez, these guys are becoming more and more like demons!!!
Hitler was probably considered by Eva Braun as just misunderstood and would point at the great affection he had for his dogs. Dina Rodiguez was said to be in favour of flies dying a natural death and most generous and kind person any of her friends and family had known.
I think the evidence will show differently if investigated. They have a sibling whose gay and defended them against victimization, the initiation is for the good of the younger students in being accepted, they can’t wait to finish university so that they can marry their childhood sweetheart who they adore and respect for their parents who unnecessarily indulge them.
But at no time did they think that an African is worthy of the same treatment as the people in their lives I described. I don’t believe they ever will.
Michael Osborne says:
October 23, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Counter-intuitive though it may be, does not an allegation of personal racism require a certain conscious singling-out?
———————————————————————————————————-
If I understand this correctly, four white youth urinated in dog food that they fed to four African women workers.
It was not their mothers, cousins, friends, the Chinese, extraterrestrials or whatever.
That is as singled out as it gets!
Pierre says
October 23, 2009 at 14:46 pm
Absolutely. All the rest is just semantics. You cannot take their actions out of context.
Pierre, I do not think you advance the argument by labelling contributions “absurd.”
You say the humiliation was deliberate. Earlier, you said intent is irrelevent. Which is it?
You say they are said to be “good boys.” Who says this of them? Their mothers?
But if they really are “good,” in the sense that they as a rule treat people – including other whites — with respect, then of course this would be strong evidence they are racist.
Leigh says:
October 23, 2009 at 13:29 pm
There’s so far absolutely nothing to suggest that the four did anything close to this to anyone else.
Michael by broadening and generalising is trying to shift this away from racism to generally atrocious behaviour (which it also is).
That line may carry among some, but highly unlikely that it will be seen generally to be anything but racist.
If their mothers come forward and say that they ate dog food that was urinated in by their children, maybe then I would accept that it was not racist.
Maggs, by your logic, if I murdered a Jew last year, that makes me an Anti-Semite. End of story.
After all, I did not murder any Muslims or Christians last year. I singled him out, this Jew!
Great logic!
Michael Osborne says:
October 23, 2009 at 15:07 pm
If you murdered a Jew because you enjoyed murdering Jews it would make you an Anti-Semite.
Are you suggesting that this four went around pissing in dog food and feeding to people generally?
They did this because they found these women vulnerable, precisely because they were African women workers.
Maggs Naidu says:
October 23, 2009 at 15:04 pm
Absolutely!!
Since they and no-one on their behalf have even given us an indication of what sort of boys they are – the silence makes us concluded that all those in their corner are in favour of their behaviour and do not think even a public defence is necessary.
Maggs, at 15:11pm you make out that the Reitz four found the victims to be ‘vulnerable, precisely because they were African women workers’.
So it seems to me that on your contribution at 15:11pm, the key feature could have been not necessarily race but vulnerability.
As I take Michael’s point, he advances that it may be fair to assume (not conclude) that the Reitz four are sadistic bullies who may have similarly degraded people of other races who happened to be vulnerable – maybe a younger, effeminate, poor, physically weak white student.
So my question to you is this: does your post at 15:11pm show that you see the sense in Michael’s contribution?
Maggs, I have said these boys were, on the available evidence, thugs. (Universally so, that is.)
But the credibility of the charges against them — and for which I think they deserve expulsion, if proven — is undermined if you play fast and loose with the facts.
Jansen said on the radio this morning (I think), that urinating on food was not part of the charges against them.
“the Reitz four are sadistic bullies”
Why do I see signs of wanting to link these boys to the Waterkloof four, who seems to have the characteristics that Michael illustrated?
Professor, if I remember correctly, you once said that when you were growing up, you were sometimes picked on.
With great respect, I would ask some questions of you. Sorry to repeat myself, but I truly intend no disrespect and if (a) my questions are disrespectful or (b), you would prefer to leave them unanswered, I would completly understand.
1. Was the environment in which you were picked on completly dissimilar to Reitz?
2. If not, is it possible that you were picked on because you may have been perceived to have been relatively more vulnerable than maybe the next person?
I was also picked on sometimes. But then so were many of my classmates. Regrettably, that sort of thing is just not uncommon in South African Schools and maybe not at South African universities. Human nature (as I think Michael makes out earlier) is ugly in some ways. I heard this morning that Professor Jansen banned initiations at that university. The relevant point: initiations had to be banned. Did any of those initiations involve impairments of the personality interests (eg dignity, physical integrity etc) of white people such as more vulnerable students? Can anyone participating in this discussion rule that out conclusively?
How does one determine vulnerability then?
Because those who went through these initiations might have viewed it as a rite of passage and in fact gained confidence from enduring these practices.
But these boys chose persons who would not question or even understand the objectives of the abuse – and used their “Klein baas” status to make it a reality.
Leigh says:
October 23, 2009 at 15:38 pm
As I take Michael’s point, he advances that it may be fair to assume (not conclude) that the Reitz four are sadistic bullies who may have similarly degraded people of other races who happened to be vulnerable
———————————————————————————————————-
There’s nothing to support that they “may have similarly degraded people of other races who happened to be vulnerable”. Zilch. Zero. Nada.
Anything about what is not supported by the cold hard facts is conjecture and as I said earlier serves only to deflect from the cold, harsh reality.
BTW I agree with Jansen (except insofar as he did not engage the victims about the way forward – that was unacceptable and if he needs to do something about that).
Michael Osborne says:
October 23, 2009 at 15:40 pm
I listened to the interview with Jansen played on the After Eight Debate with Tim Modise.
It seems that overall Jansen has emerged well except insofar as not engaging the victims (for that he has a lot to answer).
These young are smart enough to be at university (I don’t know which year they are in), they are smart enough to know that urinating in dog food and feeding to human beings is a deplorable act.
I remain unconvinced that they would have done anything similar if the women were White.
Maggs Naidu says:
October 23, 2009 at 16:23 pm
Maggs, I don’t know about you but serious attempts are being made to conjure up the view that these boys are examples of neo-nazis and driven by latent power hunger and not just typical young white lads who llistened in awe at their uncles’ renditions of what they used to make blacks do for laughs, and wanted to try it out themselves ….
Maggs, I must admit that my own prejudices — about the way young college men who drink are all over the world tends to be — colours my hunch that these Reitz boys are sadistic bullies who will crush whatever is vulnerable in their paths, if they think they can get away with it.
I do think, however, that if we accuse someone of racism, the burden is on us to at least show some evidence that the attack was motivated by racial animus.
That is why the classic case of this nature tends to be bolstered by evidence of racial epithets etc.
I am sure many farmers assume that farm murders are animated by racism. And it is probably true that racial resentment plays some part in some attacks. But I am also sure (although without evidence), that dispossessed often desperate young men would attempt to rob anyone who was isolated, and, by their standards, very wealthy.
That is why I think it is by and large absurd to classify farm murders as hate crimes.
Harold Ferwood says:
October 23, 2009 at 16:32 pm
I get the impression that the attempt is to solve racism by denying that it exists.
Harold is right.
The initiates generally enjoy their initiation.
It is not humiliation, but a “right of passage.”
Respek!
@ Maggs:
“I remain unconvinced that they would have done anything similar if the women were White.”
If the reported incident of college/university rape is anything to go by, I fear there may be many young men who are not too worried about degrading women, of any race.
Or maybe the Reitz 4 really are just nice young men who, as Harold touchingly put it, would defend their gay brothers.
Michael Osborne (yesterday)
“Yes, we can indeed talk about Reitz AND babies dying. But only if we have all the time in the world, infinite capacity for outrage, a billion gigabytes or our hard drive — and no sense of priority or balance or impact or proportion.”
Glad to see you still debating the Reitz issue!
Michael Osborne says:
October 23, 2009 at 16:37 pm
Rape, murder and other violent crimes are not the issue.
These fellows carefully planned this.
They went to great depths to degrade the women and sadistically enjoyed the degradation to the extent that they put it up for the world to see.
There is nothing to suggest that they did anything similar to White women.
We have just the cold hard reality before us and that someone who knows them well enough called them “good boys”.
http://hades.mg.co.za/zapiro/all
@ Maggs
OK, Maggs, I give up.
These Reitz “boys”: probably very nice young men – one issue aside.
Also, the farm murderers: nice enough young men too. Such a pity they hate whites so much.
(Did you know they kill farmers because they are white?)
“(Did you know they kill farmers because they are white?)”
Yes, but their “whiteness” is merely a way for the murderers to rationalize that they deserve being brutalized and not worthy of living – but the main reason is for gain …
Harold Ferwood says:
October 23, 2009 at 20:08 pm
I am still trying to make sense of this.
There had to be a motive of sorts behind this.
If they thought that it was funny then they had to have themselves enjoyed degrading the women.
Posting it on the internet – they would have believed that others would have found it equally funny. It’s unlikely that they would have thought for a moment that Black people would have found this funny.
So exactly who’s sense of humour would they have been aiming this at?
Maggs, you say that there is nothing to suggest that the Reitz fou may have similarly degraded other people.
Part of my point (with which I believe Michael’s points are consistent) is this: we know that the university had initiations. And apparently, those initiations were enough of a problem for Jansen to ban them. So we do have a fairly strong indication that degrading behaviour took place at the university.
Can you say for a certainty that white people (maybe weaker, younger or otherwise vulnerable students) were never victimised? I do not believe that you can.
So the point is that given what may have been the prevailing culture of initiation at the university, the four lads, although unquestionably mean, may not have been animated by racism. Further, the effect of their awful behaviour was certainly horrid but not necessarily racist given that some white people may have suffered similarly in a culture of initiations.
Can you really say for a certainty that these four boys would not have victimised a smaller, younger, weaker, poorer white student? I advance that given the culture of initiation that was apparently so grave that initiations had to be banned, you cannot reasonably rule out the victimisation of vulnerable white students at the university. And unless you can rule it out, with respect, you ought to (a) concede on this score and (b), apologise to Michael for failing to acknowledge the dead good sense he has made.
Hi all,
Having read Professor Jansen’s full address, which I view as a “monumental address”, I would like to add these comments to the debate.
First, I was not brought up in South Africa, and find that in this country your “race” is what defines a person, even after 15 years of democracy, that is how South Africans relate to each other. Rather sad I think. So many beautiful cultures here and we choose a person’s physical characteristics to determine whether we interact or avoid each other.
With regards to the Reitz issue, in the section “Sub-cultures of derision” of Professor Jansen’s address, he mentions the “damaging cultural legacies” that have become part of the institution. One of these is “initiation” where seniors humiliate first year students. I have witnessed this process in fraternities at the university that I attended in the USA. The supposed purpose of allowing the ongoing humiliation of oneself at the hands of your future “brothers” is to prove one’s total loyalty to that fraternity regardless of what they do. I always saw the “frat brothers” as weak people that needed a group to feel strong; the weakest characters usually inflicted the most humiliation on the initiates, which were just seen as “low lifes” at this point in the process.
In the South African context, the past history will have significant impact on who is considered a “low life”. The Reitz video was supposed to be a satire on an initiation. The “initiates” were black ladies.
That in itself asks a question; why would it be satirical for a black person to be initiated into Reitz? The acts of humiliation in the video are meant to be humorous. But for whom? The video won some sort of award; so were the acts funny just for the four video makers or was it also amusing for the wider audience that they were making the video for? So another question is posed: Would this video have won this award if it was filmed with white women from the boys’ farms? If the answer is “yes” then there would be no racial bias; but somehow I don’t believe the farming community that the boys’ originate from would have found it acceptable.
This indicates the institutionalised nature of these attitudes at least in sections of the UFS and is why the Professor as the Head of the university has accepted the blame for these occurrences. This indicates that these acts were indeed a part of the UFS culture and did happen to students. It is significant that Professor Jansen has now banned these initiations totally under threat of criminal prosecution
With regards to interfering with the UFS disciplinary process, I believe that Professor Jansen had to make a decision here purely on the time frame he had to work in. I’m fairly sure that he would have preferred that process to be concluded, and then “pardon” the students, as means to kick start the implementation of his changes to the University. I’m certain it would have been an easier path. But he sees the immediate implementation of his changes to build a non racial institution and country as a higher priority for the UFS than waiting for that “right time”. The students still will face the law, in the courts, and HRC.
@ Leigh
If only Mbeki had known about you – he would certainly made use of your skills and made you his spokesperson for his stance on AIDS!
Even if we cannot say with certainty it wouldn’t create a reasonable doubt that they were racist.
The more I’m reading all this the more it becomes clearer that no matter how much effort and intellectualizing on the part of whites to understanding the true essence of racism, it will always elude them. It is the same as a man trying to understand a woman.
IT WAS THERE LEIGH! THE RACISM …
AROUND THOSE BOYS WHEN THEY WERE FILMING THEMSELVES HUMILIATING THOSE WOMEN AND MAN.
AROUND THE WORKERS IN THEIR INABILITY TO SPEAK AGAINST THESE ACTS IN FEAR OF OFFENDING “DIE KLEIN BASE”.
AROUND THOSE WHO LAUGHED AT IT ON THE INTERNET UNTIL SOMEONE WITH WHO HAD SOME INTEGRITY EXPOSED IT.
AROUND THOSE WHO ARE SILENT IN SPEAKING AGAINST THESE BOYS ACTIONS BUT WILL STAND BY THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE THEIR OWN.
AROUND THOSE HERE TRYING TO FIND ALTERNATIVES TO A BLATANT TRUTH.
I guess you and Michael can move onto the recent CT study and make that also a figment of everyone’s imagination ….
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3102&art_id=vn20091022043211281C843507
@Leigh
“….you cannot reasonably rule out the victimisation of vulnerable white students at the university. And unless you can rule it out, with respect, you ought to (a) concede on this score and (b), apologise to Michael for failing to acknowledge the dead good sense he has made.”
That’s not the test applied in a court of law. It is also, unless you are a Popperian, not a test required for winning a philosophical argument – and, no, Leigh, with respect, I think, Michael does not make sense!
@Michael Osborne
yesterday in an earlier post you listed instances that have been incorrrectly referred to as racist. And? Well, you didn’t prove your point – false labels do not affect the substance – racism exists!
One cannot strip an argument from alls its history and context; removing the emotional baggage from an argument is not the height of rationality! On the contrary. In instances where emotions, perceptions, and irrationality shape the content of an act and its motivations, one cannot subsequently pretend that character (somehow featured as free-floating) and the psychological make-up of the person alone informes behaviour. Experience does count!
Whether these guys were also sadistic bullies or not is actually irrelevant – the point is they are allegedly racist bullies or racist sadistic bullies.
Are you starring in the role of Devils Advocate? Or as an Advocate versed in Begriffsjurisprudenz?
@ Harold Ferwood
I agree – the racism in the acts by the Reitz four is there for all to see – unmistakingly
Leigh says:
October 23, 2009 at 21:07 pm
As you say Madam.
Micheal, I am sorry that your good sense is dead (c/o Leigh).
Leigh says:
October 23, 2009 at 21:07 pm
It’s unlikely that they believed that Black people would have found this funny –
so any idea who they intended as their target youtube audience?
@ Charlotte A
I do not think you read yesterday’s postings very carefully. (For which I can hardly blame you, given their prolixity.)
1. The point of listing the instances of spurious racism allegations was to respond to your apparent suggestion that one may NEVER dismiss any racism allegation, if one is white. Yet I take it you would agree that it is OK to say that it is Mbeki who was doing the trivialising when he says, e.g., that attacks on corruption are racially motivated, and so is the alleged HIV AIDS link.
2. The point that Leigh and I were advancing was this: Whether in a ct of law or not, it is an elementary principle that she who asserts must prove. It seems to me that with respect to the Reitz boys, racist animus was presumed, not proved. Now that presumption may in fact be sociologically well-founded, in this case. But that is a different matter, and a complex one at that.
3. The point of the farm murder analogy was to demonstrate that, applying logic similar to that employed re Reitz, one could well concur with organised agriculture that farm murders are, by and large, racially animated. Once again, the allegation has a superficial common-sense, emotive appeal. But I think it must be interrogated, for the same reason the easy assumptions about Reitz must be challenged.
What an amazing discussion. Leigh, Michael, I think the biggest problem you face in gaining recognition of your points here is that for so many, to acknowledge your argument has any merit they must also acknowledge their own internalised predjudice. Clearly no easy task.
The most cogent argument against your suggestion is that there is no evidence that the Reitz four have done anything similar to anyone else (and specifically White anyone else). Has anyone really looked? How many people have seen the “obvious” racism and looked no further?
What a fractured society we live in – which moves me to my original thought when Prof first posted this blog entry:
There are two ways to bend behaviour – the carrot and the stick.
It is clear that the UFS campus is as racially fractured as the rest of South Africa and more besides, and in desperate need of “correction.”
Now which is more likely to succeed – beating the racism out of the campus or inspiring it out of the system?
University students are well known to rebel against strong-arm tactics and by all accounts forcing integration hasn’t done the trick.
The adversarial cycle needed to be broken and I think we should not only give Prof. Jansen credit for his bold leadership, but allow him the space for his efforts to reconcile the UFS campus to succeed or fail.
Prof Jansen has to deal with the reality on the ground. We should all be desperately hoping that he succeeds.
Dave A says:
October 24, 2009 at 10:14 am
“Now which is more likely to succeed – beating the racism out of the campus or inspiring it out of the system?”
It seems that Jansen is right to take the latter part.
That presupposes racism.
If the argument that this was racially inspired then Jansen is wrong, isn’t he?
Michael – perhaps you can also respond to my q to leigh.
It’s unlikely that they believed that Black people would have found this funny –
so any idea who they intended as their target youtube audience?
Maggs, I think it’s already established that the arguments are reasonably complex (certainly more complex that would seem at first glance) and I’m fairly allergic to making long posts. So may I rely as follows?
On the evidence, the view that the acts are racist is widely held. Whether the acts were indeed racist or not is irrelevant as it is the perception in the community that matters in deciding this point.
It has come to my attention that Helen Zille (but not her party) has issued a statement taking very much the same line I took in this post and seeing the Jansen decision as problematic for the Rule of Law. Good on her.
Dave A says:
October 24, 2009 at 11:11 am
We may easily end up believing that apartheid having been enforced for “my God and my country” may well have been deep spiritualism and patriotism rather than racism.
I accept Michael’s premise that not all dastardly, cowardly, despicable, evil acts are necessarily racist.
Everything about this incident smacks of deep seated racism – it goes to the very heart of what these hooligans have been indoctrinated into believing i.e. that they are superior and the Blacks are less than people.
I think the Reitz four would probably have humiliated any smaller, younger, weaker poor Black or White student if they had the chance. As a first year student I had to go though much the same, I hated it and vowed never to be part of it when I’m a senior student. At the same time, knowing the Afrikaans culture, being part of it, I’m 100% certain that they would not not have acted the same if the ladies were not Black. So I have no doubt that their actions were pure racism, and nothing else. At the same time I think their parents should be blamed at least as much as the four students. They would not have done it if they had learned proper values as young children. Perhaps the children who now has to suffer for the sins of their fathers?
@Dave A :
And you have the idiocy to suggest, above, that “…the arguments are fairly complex”!! Please! This extended splitting of hairs… the prejudiced sophistry… the desperate ‘intellectualizing’ of a glaringly self-evident matter… the obstructionist use of semantics to escape into self-delusional constructs of flimsily-hidden ideology…. it’s typical SOUTHERN SUBURBS DINNER-TABLE STUFF man!!!! What really hurts is knowing that the ‘Michael Osbourne’s’ and the ‘Leigh’s’ of this world represent and drive our influential South African ‘establishment’; their blend of rationalization and obfuscation lies at the very heart of the rot in our society. That legally-inspired mix of waffle and circuitous reasoning serves them well –(as it always has)– in avoiding the ‘inconvenience’ of having to truthfully ENGAGE with the underlying, (but fortuitously distant), demands of a sick society. It’s certainly no coincidence that ‘Dwork’ has not posted on this site in the recent past; he must be extraordinarily proud of his MAS-members, whilst gleefully surveying the unmitigated c…p being shovelled around by those above-mentioned intellectual ‘giants’.
And Professor de Vos, you expect that one should engage with people at that level?? In some futile exercise at demonstrating the values pertaining to a ‘freedom of speech’?? It is absolutely clear, from all the various contributions on all the various sites, that none of the ‘learned’ participants on this blog COULD ever emerge from the comfy ‘DA- like’ confines of their established prejudices. But it’s so much ‘fun’ to indulge in endless banter… and the scoring of political-points, which have already been dealt with, ad nauseum, by other groupings — with the same boring predictability of insight — in the mainstream media. As I had originally suggested to you – this tiresome rehashing of establishment-thinking, interspersed with a display of the latest, (’frightfully clever old chap), sick little Dworkism – PREVENTS cutting-edge debate. I steer away from this level of interaction with my friends and acquaintances; why should I have to endure this c…p here? To honour this level of ‘bulldust’ with a measured response, merely to prove the time-honoured traditions of open-debate, would only serve to further entrench those views which deserve immediate, and instinctive, disdain. I will again repeat my initial observation… if this is a true indication of the thinking within the hallowed halls of society’s supposed ‘elite’… God help us all. Why should any African trust the bona fides of an old-guard establishment if the ‘Michael Osbourne’s’ and the ‘Leigh’s’ of this world are the proud standard-bearers of so much ignorance and duplicity? If African thinkers were at all interested in sharing their ideas on this blog, the general attitudes on display here would certainly act as major deterrent to any expression of an African identity. African thinkers are, as we’ve seen on so many of the other sites, immediately forced onto the defensive if those contributions do not unhesitatingly reflect the unstated precepts of establishment discourse.
The Reitz bunch are unrepentant RACISTS…; it was a HUGE error of judgment, inspired by short-sighted political opportunism, in ‘pardoning’ the bas…ds… . End of story. Professor de Vos, erase this post… and move on!
‘Maggs’, ‘Harold’, ‘Sarah Palin’, Mzo’, ‘Charlotte A’, ‘Khosi’ and others: good luck to you; I don’t have your patience for an old-boys club of ‘talking- heads’ that is UNWILLING AND UNABLE to reinspect the rot in its very foundations. I refuse to claim a spot at the round-table, where each participant is merely filling a predictable role in a predetermined process of legitimizing a status quo.
Chris says:
October 24, 2009 at 15:15 pm
“At the same time, knowing the Afrikaans culture, being part of it, I’m 100% certain that they would not not have acted the same if the ladies were not Black. So I have no doubt that their actions were pure racism, and nothing else.”
Nicely said!
george says:
October 24, 2009 at 16:09 pm
I share your annoyance.
I don’t think that leaving this be is wise – unless people understand how strongly many of us feel about this and similar it’s unlikely that they will introspect.
They can engage in their dinner time scoffing at our outrage – at least they will know that we are outraged.
@ George et Maggs
I want to assure you both that I am in full solidarity with your white-hot fury at the SOUTHERN SUBURBS DINNER-TABLE STUFF of the Mutual Admiration Society (“MAS”), composed of Leigh, Michael, etc.
But George, I am mortified that you have discerned a “Dworkish” resonance in the PRIMITIVE ABOMINATIONS of the MAS. I can only assume that a “cyber-space transposition” has generated a terrible misunderstanding. (Pierre, please have your “techy” look into this.)
I am on record as demanding that these so-called Reitz boys be HUNG DRAWN AND QUARTERED! (This is notwithstanding that these “boys’ are most likely, as Maggs has pointed out, in all other respects rather sweet kids.)
Let me be clear: I would not countenance mediaeval-style sanction for Leigh and Michael. But I lend full-throated support to the demand that the MAS feel the full weigh of your RIGHTEOUS ANGER! May they choke on their typical SOUTHERN SUBURBS dinner, be served wilted salad (“tired” endive), parasite-infested pork, and salmonella-stained poultry!
@ George
Terribly sorry to have stood in the way of the “cutting-edge” debate, you had hoped for. And apologies too for my off-handed jurisprudential references. I gratefully await your further guidance.
@ Maggs
I have no idea what the intended YouTube audience was. Misogynists perhaps?
Hey Guys,
I had such a good laugh!
Although I don’t agree with Fassbinder’s position (he says the opposite of what he means) and I have disagreed with what Michael Osborne wrote on this topic, but what I just read was so very funny, Fassbinder…
and Michael Osborne’s biting sarcasm of “I gratefully await your further guidance” … We can do with more
(although, it’s a bit of white thing, of course, this kind of humour)
and Michael, you haven’t won your argument yet)
george says:
October 24, 2009 at 16:09 pm
~And you have the idiocy to suggest, above, that “…the arguments are fairly complex”!!~
You’re right, George. Michael’s argument is not complex at all. It’s just really uncomfortable to even contemplate the possibility. It challenges our instincts. Most inconvenient.
Let me complete the job of hanging myself by saying in hindsight, clearly I was being condescending in describing this as complex. It was entirely instinctive and I blame my failure to identify my subliminal folly before hitting that *submit* button on my racist upbringing and obviously far too many southern suburbs dinner parties.
~That legally-inspired mix of waffle and circuitous reasoning serves them well –(as it always has)– in avoiding the ‘inconvenience’ of having to truthfully ENGAGE with the underlying, (but fortuitously distant), demands of a sick society.~
They should just learn to rely entirely on instinct at the first sign of ‘inconvenience’? That seems to defeat the notion that truth may be revealed through constructive debate and reflection. We could just have a show of hands after Pierre’s every post and be done with it.
Just skip their comments (and mine too if you wish) if they prove tiresome.
May I also concede you make a strong point on waffle. It’s why I’m allergic to making long comments. Let me hit that *submit* button before I’m tempted further.
Oops! I forgot to apologise.
My sincere apologies to any I may have offended in this sequence.
@ Dave A
Speaking only for myself, I am unprepared to accept your sarcastic, insincere apology.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
October 25, 2009 at 15:26 pm
Do not be so harsh! Not to long ago there was an almost world-wide outcry when Prince Harry wore a Nazi armband to a party. Everyone tried to analyse what it exactly meant. Was he Anti-Semitist or merely looking for attention?
Very quickly was an apology put forward and the matter died down faster than it arose. Take a note from that type of forgiveness …
I am glad that Dave has identified the flaw in his make-up. That he decides to learn and change is another story.
What a tragic train-accident, just waiting to happen?
It’s exactly to prevent such that apartheid/segregation was invented.
Indian muslims wanted/needed their Pakistan.
Jews wanted/needed Israel.
White settlers will have to leave like in the rest of s.s.africa & Haitti.
The Rector and Tutu’s warnings will be ignored.
The blankes who stay longest, can demand ever increasing remuneration for their
increasingly scarce skills.
Re. strange adolescent rituals: why doesn’t anybody ELSE mention the bantu
initiation-rights? And how many have been killed there?
Afrikaaner’s ruKby-mentality, perhpas mkes them more extreme with these adolescent rituals? I’ve been a victim. The denial of the globally common
bullying behaviour, on this forum, confirms the lack of worldlyness of
the posters.
I, for one do not have a problem of accepting the decision by Jansen for forgiveness of the culprits; provided that everybody else who has sinned or committed crime is also forgiven on the same basis of reconciliation.
What is, however, the problem is this term “reconciliation” which has been provided as the reason for revoking the charges against the wrongdoers. The 1994 National Reconciliation was more to do with the transition from the apartheid regime to a constitutional democracy. Hence today we have a constitution which is our guiding document. Whether Jansen was invoking the 1994 National Reconciliation in withdrawing the charges is not clear. But it would be wrong if that was the case because the 1994 National Reconciliation is no longer relevant today because we have passed the transitional period and we are now in a democratic state founded on a democratic constitution which is our supreme legal document guiding our conduct.
As a result of this decision, many people are still baffled whether Jansen has powers to override the university policy on racism (perhaps they may be no university policy on racism). The key issue on this decision is its rationality and therefore the rule of law has clearly been undermined; partly because the reconciliation Jansen refers is not the same as 1994 National Reconciliation which was mandated by the government at the time.
To many people this decision will remain a tragedy until Jansen has proved that he had the powers to override the university policy, until he has proved his reasons for withdrawing the charges should override the constitution and the rule of law.
Because the decision has already been taken, then everybody else who has been found guilty in the courts of public opinion (including this forum) should be forgiven. Professor de Vos can you please forgive all the people you have found guilty here on the basis on reconciliation?
@ Dave A
I would like to thank you for your participation in this debate and especially for your post on 24 October at 22:23pm. I am sorry for posting fairly belatedly but this is the first chance I have had to do so since Friday.
I am going to touch on two of the principal points that you raised. For a start, I agree with you in that the view which Michael has advanced does tend to inspire discomfort for precisely the reason that you indentified: it runs counter to intuition. That is, four white thugs behaving so appallingly towards black people can only be racist to the minds of many people. Many people just do not want to contemplate other possible explanations.
The second of those points is this: Michael’s contention – with which I still agree – is not at all complex. I think the argument can be captured thus: a point the runs decidedly contrary to intuition is not necessarily wrong. And assumptions that are very much in keeping with intuition are not necessarily true in fact. The only way to know is to test those assumptions and to base our holdings on what we discover – and even then the conclusions may not be right.
“Many people just do not want to contemplate other possible explanations.”
On the contrary it is the other way round – that many whites do not want to contemplate the one and only explanation here!
This goes to the crux of the circular and almost monotonous debating on this blog that whites do not and seems, will not accept – that unfortunately your logic and reasoning capacity is guided by an inherent and possibly genetic-coded prejudice towards blacks. Many are very capable of suppressing these beliefs, but does nothing to solve the dilemma, that, frankly, is impossible.
@ Harold is right.
Racism is not something we can approach using conventional tools like “logic” or rationality. Indeed, to do so only reproduces the very first order-racism we are attempting to grasp; remember, linear logic and syllogistic reasoning are themselves colonial impositions. They are methodologically racist, so to speak.
A more helpful approach must, as George has brilliantly articulated, employ non-linear “circular” logic; be acutely sensitive to CONTEXT; embrace the ethical imperative of UBU-NTU, to construct a meta-narrative of emancipation.
Respek.
Yes Chris of October 24, 2009 at 15:15 pm, got it right. And re. ‘Afrikaans culture’
or the fear of height and snakes: when will that too be labelled a dreaded X-ism.
The fact that I enjoy priviledged treatment as a madala in s.s.africa could also
be labeled as some dreaded Z-ism calling for burning at the stake, instead of being
recogised as ‘african culture’ — which keeps Mugabe in power.
—
BTW, some browser/s return the previous/last poster’s ‘name’ and required/
will-not-be-published ‘email’ fields.
–> BTW2: since Kriegler confirmed that ‘the market’ is solving justice, as it’s trying to solve policing, by the increasing use of arbitrators: are their findings made public, so that they can be evaluated for competence? Of course the reports could be sanatized too, as this lay-man has evidence of [probably most] SA law reports being.
[...] Net soos wat ons wil hê die oortreder Schabir Shaik moet nie spesiale gunsies ontvang net omdat hy vriende met pres Zuma is nie, net so moet ons ook nie spesiale gunsies verwag vir oortreders in ons geledere nie. In hierdie soort gunsies lê die saad van korrupsie. Daarteenoor lei die behoorlike regspleging wat in ‘n regstaat gebeur, tot ‘n ordelike en veilige samelewing. Die regsgeleerde, Pierre de Vos, verduidelik dit ook hier. [...]
Leigh says:
October 26, 2009 at 8:51 am
“For a start, I agree with you in that the view which Michael has advanced does tend to inspire discomfort for precisely the reason that you indentified: it runs counter to intuition. That is, four white thugs behaving so appallingly towards black people can only be racist to the minds of many people”.
Nice spin.
It would have been credible had Pierre not pointed out “(w)e look at the Reitz video, at what those guys did, at their anti-integration rhetoric (which formed part of the video) and we decide that they are racist.”
I don’t think Michael was being entirely honest when he suggested that the target audience was misogynists (a skill he must have picked up from our Minister of Justice re the Shaik application for pardon), unless he meant racist misogynists.
@ Maggs
“It would have been credible had Pierre not pointed out “(w)e look at the Reitz video, at what those guys did, at their anti-integration rhetoric (which formed part of the video) and we decide that they are racist.”
I said at the start of this debate that any contemporaneous statement from the boys themselves would certainly be relevant. So what was this “anti integration rhetoric” the boys used? This has not been much publicized in the media. And certainly it has not been what you and others have been relying upon in this interminable debate.
Also, you may recall that Pierre took the position early on that intent was irrelevant. (Do I quote you correctly, Pierre?) It is that claim which I find especially unacceptable in this kind of case, since it could lead to the attribution effectively of racism to almost any situation. Once again, the effect is to trivialise the discourse of racism.
Michael Osborne says:
October 27, 2009 at 10:23 am
Ok Michael – you got me.
I did not look at the entire video, it was more revolting than my stomach could handle (hmm that did not come out quite as I intended, but you get my drift).
I rely on Pierre this time round – interrogate him!
p.s. I still don’t believe you about the misogynists though.
I think these guys had three motives.
One was to vent their frustration at the inevitable “coming of the Blacks” into their very own hostels and campus.
Two was their very noble intention of creating a spectre around which society at large could mobilise against racism, not hypocrisy.
Three they initiated a campaign to get rid of Jansen and that seems to be gaining successful momentum – http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article167746.ece
Michael Osbourne, my position was that intent is not REQUIRED to establish racism. But of course if intent is shown that sort of ends the argument does it not? My point was that even where intent was NOT proven the law does not assume that there is no racism or discrimination. In any case, read the following description of the video which, it seems to me, sort of end the argument:
Frome News24: ” Bloemfontein – A racism bombshell hit the University of the Free State (UFS) on Tuesday when a video was distributed showing five black cleaners at a traditionally white men’s residence on the campus being “initiated”.
Amid loud laughter, they are shown taking part in races, downing beers and drinking a mixture in which a student had secretly urinated….
The narration on the video begins: “Once upon a time the ‘boere’ lived peacefully here on Reitz Island, until one day when the less-advantaged discovered the word ‘integration’ in the dictionary.”
The cleaners take part in a “boat race” (a beer-downing competition), a dance, a sprint race, a mock rugby practice and finally, they’re given a mixture to drink.
The video shows garlic being put into a dish full of what looks like dog food.
“We know they’re less privileged so we’re adding a bit of meat,” says the narrator.
Another student puts the bowl on the toilet and urinates into the mixture.
The brew is then distributed in plastic glasses to the cleaners.
All five of them spit out the first mouthful, but try to finish it amid loud encouragement from the students.
The video ends with the words: “That, at the end of the day, is what we think of integration.”
This is followed by one of the students asking a cleaner: “What does ’sefebe’ mean in Afrikaans?”
“A black whore,” she replies.
Pierre, you are being a little naughty.
Your first response to my post was to say — no intent is needed under s. 9 and the Equality Act. It was not; well here intent has been proven by contemporaneous statements.
And that News 24 piece you cited is suspect in at least one respect; is it not now accepted that the urine was “simulated” rather than real?
Nevertheless, if indeed the stuff about integration etc was said, that would be strong evidence of racial animus. That too was my position at the outset.
Michael Osborne says:
October 27, 2009 at 21:59 pm
I downloaded the video and have watched it several times.
It’s not “simulated” urine even though the thug was filmed from behind.
If you have not done so already, then take a look and then tell us what you think was behind this.
@ Maggs … you got a strong stomach – I’d rather watch the entire Cannibal Massacre movie series than that several times!
Giving some further though to Michael and Leigh’s recent submissions and reflect on my past life experiences white Afrikaner youths and men, both as friends and colleagues.
Its clear to me now that there was always an underlying belief (almost divine dogma) about their superiority over other races. From this foundation everything else was constructed around – Their relationships with other people, they way they see the world, etc.
So whether there was the presence of sadistic or even misogyny, these merely fueled their first and foremost nature – racist!
But just reflecting on this one incident doesn’t confront the whole microcosm to which they belong and is growing everyday … Maggs hinted to this in his question on who the intended audience was.
The difference of this new breed is that they are fully aware of the ignorant notions which were perpetuated by their elders and history – but outright reject its falsehood and willingly want it.
And our Black Youth and leaders are aware of this and taking their own hard-line attitude to it by being brazen as in the instances of hate speech towards any exponents – an inquisition of a different kind it seems …
Harold Ferwood says:
October 27, 2009 at 23:58 pm
“you got a strong stomach – I’d rather watch the entire Cannibal Massacre movie series than that several times!”
After watching the video several times over, I am now of the view that Jansen was wrong.
Those thugs should be banned from any university in South Africa.
I must add that it’s disappointing that Zuma has not intervened to curtail the anger that is quickly turning into hate speech – his name is being invoked in some instances as with the Free State ANCYL.
If he does not step in soon this will turn really ugly.
@ Maggs
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1082512
I thought that the “K” word was only used in the townships and by senior members of SAFA when speaking to journalists but it seems to still be in common use amongst whites and even songs – wasn’t it a hit for Arthur back in the 90’s?
I am sure you can hear the mumbles that maybe Malema and his ilk might be right in their stance – and the outcry is only coming from the other sector of society. Which tells me that they are starting to tap into the resentment which Madiba was for such a long time able to quell. But when even he becomes the butt of jokes and racism I don’t think even words from Zuma can stop the coming tornado!
@ Harold.
I am following that debacle and waiting for the right wing spin on it with keen interest.
There is a lot of unresolved anger – those who are defending the indefensible are making it worse.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091028042212356C755001
False alarm people!!! Just another misunderstanding …
I hope the DA will retract the charges.
You confused the issue. The rule of law still needs to be applied and the trial for the students is still continuing. From the sound of things, their names could be cleared if the court case continued because the evidence is stacked in their favour. It could expose the media bias about the case.
Surely Jansen’s decision to drop disciplinary action was a moral decision and not a legal one.
You, of all people, know that legislation, politics and morals are not the same thing. You were the one that taught us that in the numerous posts that you wrote about the topics.
My impression is that you are very eager to please the prevailing political order. Sometimes it is at the cost of common sense.
FishEagle says:
October 30, 2009 at 18:56 pm
“From the sound of things, their names could be cleared if the court case continued because the evidence is stacked in their favour”.
So their apology is a red herring?
Maggs Naidu, I wouldn’t know.
Could you please define what you mean by forgiveness.
Cause what I never thought about what ‘forgiveness’ meant, except some intellectual decision to forgive someone, based upon certain condtions — i.e. a purely intellectual exercise.
Then I came across Radical Honesty, and learnt about sensate forgiveness; and with sensate forgiveness, it don’t matter how much you intellectually attempt to bullshit yourself that you have forgiven, cause until you forgive in your being, in your sensate memory (this will sound confusing cause it is radical honesty jargon); ALL INTELLECTUAL FORGIVENES IS FAKE… HYPOCRISY ON STEROIDS….
It is simply a passive aggresive obligation creation exercise in resentments!
Fake intellectual forgiveness is worse for racial or any type of sensitive relations, such as family or where conflict easily arises. pretending to forgive when both realise it is just a passive aggressive ploy to add extra obligations onto the other make things worse for the relationship
If the TRC had been about true, sincere forgiveness.. where those who had participated had only forgiven if they really wanted to, and if they knew in their guts and bones, they had forgiven, then it would have worked.
The problem is that the entire TRC was a massive fraud upon South Africans black and white….. by a bunch of political and religious prostitutes!
So, perhaps it may be helpful, when you guys discuss ‘forgiveness’ not working; you clarify whether the ‘forgiveness’ you speak about is some intellectual two faced game of pretend and passive aggressive obligations pyramid scheme… or whether it is of the sincere, in your gut, no fucking lies, as Ollie North would say ‘eyeball to eyeball’ variety…… kind of forgiveness…
Because if you pretend that the first, is the same as the latter….
What exactly do you know about forgiveness?
[...] probleem die omgewing is wat aanleiding gegee het tot hul optrede. De Vos se elegante essay kan hier gelees word. Hy sê dis ’n fout om Reitz te verstaan bloot as “individuele patologie”. Die [...]
http://why-we-are-white-refugees.blogspot.com/2009/10/pc-canada-vs-irb-huntley-how-many-sa.html
Has anyone asked the workers what they want?
This article, in Afrikaans on LitNet, get at some of that:
here
– James
Eish!
“Sydney – Members of an elite Australian college linked to Sydney University provoked outrage on Tuesday after it was revealed they had set up a “pro-rape” group on social networking site Facebook.”
http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iArticleId=5238830&iSectionId=2891
One need not be a genius to predict that these “nice young men” will get off with a slap on the wrist.
That is why I demand the complete transformation of the judiciary.
In the interim that these racists be severely tortured.
interim that = I demand that
Given that discussion on this one has resumed –
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-29-malema-we-cannot-feed-jansen-to-the-enemy
[...] which would be reminiscent of Apartheid So perhaps it may be helpful when you……source: http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/jansens-reitz-decision-an-attack-on-the-rule-of-law/Hulu to charge subscription fee SciTechBlog CNN…Especially when you consider all of the Fox [...]
http://aliyana.biz/2009/10/the-tutu-and-mandela-the-failed-reconciliation-project/