This was first posted in January 2011 and again in Jan 2012. It was widely circulated. However it was completely ignored by all those that it appeals to. I remain undeterred, as truth must always endure.
It as relevant as ever as during past years we have heard Whites being referred to as "thieves" and Lindiwe Mazibuko being attacked just for being a Black in the Democratic Alliance, just for starters. Comments on social network sites, and in response to media reports, show that the populace is as racially orientated as ever.
None other than the President, Jacob Zuma, has just lambasted our Black populace not to love dogs and not to use facial and hair enhancement lotions, as this betrays Black ethnicity. "Even if you apply any kind of lotion and straighten your hair, you will never be white," he was reported as saying.
This is terrible stuff! really!.
He had previously voiced discomfort with the current Black Economic Empowerment model (BEE), saying what we all already know – that it has proved to be simply a vehicle for enrichment of a new “connected” elite.
So, once again, this is a direct appeal to Redi Tlhabi, John Robbie, Jenny Crwys-Williams (all of Radio 702), Justice Malala, Professor Pierre de Vos, Patricia de Liile, Helen Zille, Judge Dennis Davis, Mondli Makhanya (Sunday Times), Ferial Haffaje (Mail & Guardian), Bongani Keswa (the Sowetan) … and other influence peddlers in South African Society.
Please decide which of the following statements are true as regards South Africa -
a) human beings are categorized according to race, colour and ethnicity under Affirmative Action (AA) laws and BEE protocols;
b) with Whites excluded from jobs and contracts as a matter of course;
c) with Blacks included as of right;
d) and with Coloureds/Indians/Chinese to be included only if they first claim and prove that they are Black;
e) so rights and privileges are being accorded on the basis of race, ethnicity and colour;
f) this was the paradigm approach of the apartheid culture and system;
g) that culture was racist;
h) racism is evil;
i) and evil begets more evil.
Never mind which you may want to bake it, all of the above statements appear to be true. It would appear that we have racism. We have adopted it, believe in it, nurture it, sustain it, and propagate it … despite its evil nature.
At a stroke we appear to have adopted the very essence of the apartheid oppressor’s culture.
It is not the reality we wanted, or want … but it is the reality we got.
Certainly this is the position, unless one is able to counter this conclusion with the same simplicity of the statements advanced, without emotive obfuscation and political gobbledygook and spin.
The simple answer is that racial discrimination is not, in itself, racist. It is racist only if it lacks justification or is unfair. Given the need for massive transformation, after apartheid, little socio-economic transformation would have occurred without it. It would have been somewhat naive to believe that the largely "advantaged" Whites, who have as yet to just say sorry for the daily mistreatment of Blacks during apartheid, would have "volunteered" any form of real transformation.
In short, this is one of those rare occasions when the “end does justify the means”. Normally it does not, as would be the case where we would not award our “General” Cele a medal for uncovering a plot to bomb Soccer City and kill 75, 000 fans … if he uncovered the plot by torturing the informants.
Our case can be likened to having to use the venom of the snake itself in order to counter the effects of its bite.
But, of cause, as with using snake venom, we were always required to be acutely mindful of what we were dealing in, to proceed with extreme circumspection and to use no more of this venom than was absolutely necessary, if we were to avoid harming, even killing, the patient.
But, with respect, except as regards Employment Equity (salutary), which includes non-racial discrimination as regards gender and our disabled brethren, we have not been at all circumspect in the use of this poisonous elixir, but somewhat reckless. To-day we appear to have an “Animal Farm” situation where “Black good, White bad, Coloured/Indian not too good” as the underlying national premise on which entitlement to socio-economic rights and privileges accrue. President Jaco Zuma's latest "you want to be White" gaffs have vindicated my stance on this quite spectacularly.
The problem, and with respect, it is a terrible problem, was in the setting of the basic criteria under AA as “Black”. It would have been a relatively simple matter to set and implement it as subsisting apartheid induced disadvantage. Since Black folk are the majority in this category, they would still have been the majority beneficiaries of AA and other “real” transformation strategies.
The difference however, and it is a real difference, is that the socio-economic transformation model would then NOT have been racist.
This paradigm difference in approach would also have largely put paid to the present BEE model, which has but a nodding acquaintance with redressing disadvantage, and as Zwelinzima Vavi (Secretary General of Cosatu) says - "It is greed that is inspired by the conspicuous consumption of the new elite, the (black economic empowerment) types who blow up to R 700, 000 on one night parties ...” while millions are denied true transformation and still live under corrugated iron, cardboard and plastic.
It is blindingly clear that, because we prescribed being "Black" as the paradigm criteria, opened the door for all these fat cats to tenderpreneur themselves to fabulous wealth whether or not they were ever disadvantaged. Evil begets evil!
This embedding of Black ethnicity, as the basic criteria, is having other pernicious repercussions. If you don’t think it is evil consider the plight of Coloureds as a "touchstone" test. During apartheid many Coloured families had a “White sheep of the family”. By this is meant, a family member who had “crossed over” and was very secretly “playing White” so as to secure socio-economic advantage. Now, by law and protocol, all Coloureds are required to “play Black”, so as to secure the same advantage.
You see, in Australia the government shamefully abducted Coloured children and tried to “breed out” their Black blood. Here we imagine that passing a law classifying them as Black under a so called “extended definition of Black” gets rid of the “Coloured problem”.
It is to state the obvious to say the a person should neither be advantaged or disadvantaged, purely on account of ethnicity.
Now, please ask any 5 year old child whether or not Trevor Manuel or Herschel Gibbs is “Black” . You are then going to have to deal in lies in order to assure the child that … blah, blah, blah … as you trot out the politics of advantage and disadvantage. Please spare the child the business about Chinese being Black.
Justice can never be founded on lies!
Consider what we are doing to our children with this “Animal Farm” environment in which “Black good, White bad, Coloured/Indian/Chinese not so good” is the message. The President’s recent statements about hair and lotions are pertinent here.
What do Sonia and Mathew Booth tell their children about who and what they are? This is wicked stuff.
What is happening to the self-image of each of our little ones? Ask any criminologist and/or psychologist how important it is for human beings to accept and be proud of what and who they actually are. Problems with self image predisposes human beings to deviant and/or criminal conduct. What culture are they internalizing?
Do we really believe that one day Black folk will suddenly decide that Blacks are no longer "more equal then others" and that race, ethnicity and colour no longer matter? Do we really believe that? Do we really???
Are we so delusional as to believe that this obsession with race, colour and ethnicity is a worthy replacement for apartheid culture?
Oh yes, the American brand of AA is also raced based. The difference, and it is a huge difference, is that it is race based benevolence by a White majority for the benefit of a Black minority, apparently as an act of atonement. No one is prejudiced. No one is corruptly enriched. Despite this, the Courts there are still often embroiled in having to deal with allegations of "reverse racism" with resolution dependent on whether the discrimination was just and equitable.
As said, if subsisting apartheid induced disadvantage, was the criteria for AA and other true transformation programs, we would not have our hands steeped in perpetuating the evil culture of our apartheid oppressors.
Now unless you are able to say that what appears above is not true, in language that has the simplicity of truth, devoid of emotive obfuscation, you have a duty, a sacred duty, as an influence peddler, as an opinion maker, as a leader in your own right, to take on this evil. It is corrupting the very fabric of our society, subverting nationhood and fueling confusion, resentment and dysfunction.
You cannot continue to countenance the very essence of the culture of the apartheid oppressor and say, as it did - "we do this in the name of social justice".
I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against. Malcolm X
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.