Max du Preez’s dangerous intention

FRIDAY, 4 JANUARY 2019

Ever since I bought my first Vrye Weekblad in the early nineteen nineties, I have had respect for South African journalist Max du Preez. I have always considered him consistent in his principles. He also never allows himself to be intimidated by the powers of the day – and especially in the late eighties and early nineties there were many attempts to intimidate him, even to get rid of him completely. After 1994 he was initially rewarded for contributing to the struggle to establish a democratic dispensation in South Africa, but it wasn’t long before his opinions started annoying the dominant political group again. Over the past two decades he has continued to write books, articles, and opinion pieces on the Internet, still anchored in the same principles that had led him to start his progressive newspaper thirty years ago. Especially his opinion pieces are sometimes ruthlessly critical. One of his most controversial pieces was on how then South African president Jacob Zuma appeared to be on a one-man mission to destroy South Africa. As expected, the piece made him an even bigger enemy of some politicians than he had already been.

However, Max’s latest column for News24 strikes me as odd, to say the least. He refers to two incidents in which he was recently involved. The first one was when he wanted to buy a bottle of wine in a shop in a village on the Garden Route. One of the two cashiers was busy talking on her phone; the other one ignored him. When he asked her after a few minutes if he could pay, her response was that she was still busy with another customer and pointed to a person standing at the entrance talking to the security guard about crime in the town. After waiting a few more minutes, he approached the customer at the door and asked her if she could please complete her transaction – he was parked on a yellow line. She immediately got upset, called him arrogant, and asked him when “you people” were going to realise they were no longer the boss.

Max concedes that the situation embarrassed him very much because he is usually the person who intervenes when a white person is rude to a black employee in a store. He also admits that he was annoyed with himself because he knew he would have dealt with the other customer with much more confidence if she were white.

He also tells of an incident at a petrol station when another motorist almost drove into him as he was pulling out at the station. He reversed his car a little, and politely gestured to the other motorist to pull in. The other motorist, however, jumped out of his car and confronted Max. “What was that gesture about?” the motorist demanded, called Max a racist, and threatened him with violence.

Max believes there is a high probability that the two people expected rudeness and racism from whites because of past experiences. He comes to the conclusion that, rather than take offense, he should respect their willingness to confront him.

He also mentions that he is determined to appear “demurer and friendlier, extra polite and extra careful” when he interacts with black strangers in the future. He wondered if it would be racist and dishonest to treat black people differently than whites, but then decides it is simply the reality in South Africa today – that many South Africans are still struggling with the racial issue.

Later in the piece he also wrote that he felt it would be inappropriate for him as a white person to publicly express his opinion on the slaughter of a sheep on a beach in Clifton.

One gets the idea that Max is indeed struggling with the correct formula for how a white person should behave in South Africa almost three decades after the end of Apartheid. He acknowledges that it won’t be good for anyone if we all “tiptoed around matters of race”. He also reckons he is not one of the so-called good whites who believe white people should keep their mouths shut and not participate in public debate. He does express his belief, however, that whites have a responsibility to be more respectful and to choose their words more carefully when it comes to these matters. He hopes his grandchildren, if they are white, will be released from this burden.

I have to admit that I was a little taken aback. I think it’s generally a good idea to be respectful of anyone who is respectful to me, to be polite to any person I encounter, and not to treat someone differently just because they have a different skin colour or are from another ethnic group. And for the record: I’m willing to be polite first, to be the first one to say hello, and the first one to be kind. If the other person reciprocates, then all is well. If not, it’s that person’s problem. (I also have to mention that it won’t work out well for me not to be kind and polite to people of other races, seeing that I am one of only a few thousand pink skins who live and work amongst 23 million Taiwanese people and people of other ethnicities.)

Taken aback were I, because how long does Max believe whites in South Africa should be extra friendly and polite, and extra cautious before it would be expected from them? How long before a black guy slaps a white guy because he wasn’t demure enough on the street, or in a government building, or not extra careful or polite? How long before such a person would justify his action with the idea that by that time white people ought to know how to “deal” with the race issue in South Africa? (And would he be surprised by the support of bystanders who would agree that he had acted properly?) How long before a black pupil complains to his parents that his white teacher was not modest enough in the classroom, or was not friendly and polite enough, or was not careful enough when the teacher reprimanded the pupil? How long does Max think it would be before the parents of black pupils demand that white teachers be more careful about how they treat black pupils? And how long before somebody gets the idea that coloured and Indian South Africans didn’t suffer as much under Apartheid as black South Africans, and that it might be good if they also behaved more modestly and friendlier when they interact with black citizens, and extra polite and extra careful? Lastly, what kind of person would expect you to be friendlier to him or her than to citizens of another skin colour? What kind of person would expect you to demurer, more polite, and more careful with your words than with someone of a different ethnicity? Is this the type of world in which Max du Preez wants to live, and where he wants his children and grandchildren, and perhaps even great-grandchildren to live?

In the article, “The Fear of White Power”, Remi Adekoya refers to a conversation he had with a black friend in London about a black colleague of the friend. (I specify the race of the people because it is relevant, and because the author specified it himself.) The colleague was apparently quick to play the race card when he was stopped by a policeman after violating a traffic rule. “Why did you stop me?” the colleague asked the policeman. “Is it because you saw a black man driving an expensive car?” The policeman was immediately defensive and mumbled something about it not having anything to do with race. He ended up just giving the driver a warning. The driver’s friend who was in the car with him then asked him why he had brought up race if he knew he was in the wrong. “Dude,” came the response, “when in a tough spot with a white person, bring up racism and there’s a 99 percent chance they’ll get defensive and back down.”

The author of the article tells how the conversation with his friend continued. He shared his opinion with his friend that they should challenge black intellectuals who call “racism” for strategic reasons, and who use political correctness as a lever for psychological benefit. His friend did not agree with him. He explained that if white people in Britain weren’t kept on a leash by political correctness, things could easily return to the bad old days of a few decades ago: “In his view, the fear of being called racist is the only thing restraining whites from using their power to dominate us openly.” He concluded by reminding his friend, the author, of an important phenomenon in human relationships: “It’s not even about white or black, it’s about human nature, how people behave with unchecked power.”

This conversation took place in Britain between a black banker and a writer whose mother is Polish and whose father is from Nigeria. The banker’s opinion was to keep the power of white people in check, because human nature is human nature. In South Africa, nearly 80% of the population is black, just under 9% white, the same percentage brown, and about 2.5% Indian or of other Asian origin. It is a fact that the majority of black South Africans still live in poverty. But a significant percentage of South Africa’s middle class, and higher middle class, are also black. Millions of black children are nowadays born and raised in beautiful, leafy middle-class suburbs. And when they finish high school, they go to university, where many of them get involved in political movements. What will be the practical consequences if they agree with veteran political writer Max du Preez that whites should be “demurer and friendlier” in their interaction with black citizens, and “extra polite and extra careful”? What will be the practical implication when these young students enter the professional world? What will be the practical implication when they take over the political reins from their parents? Would the expectation for whites to be more modest and friendlier, and extra polite and extra careful be part of their thinking about racial relationships to such an extent that the expectation could just as well be made official? What will happen ten or twenty years from now if a critical percentage of South Africans agree with Max du Preez, and a white South African is not friendly enough, or polite enough, or not careful enough with their words? In short, what will happen if a white man or woman, or a white child, does not behave as expected of a white person in a country where they should be sorry for the actions of their ancestors?

I have always had respect for Max du Preez. I believe his vision has always been for a South Africa where people of different ethnicities, and different beliefs and cultures can work together to create one nation. It is still an ideal worthy of pursuit. But I’m afraid Max’s intention, and perhaps his suggestion for white South Africans until his great-grandchildren’s generation is simply too dangerous to seriously consider.

———–

My perspective on these issues may be somewhat different to that of many middle-class white South Africans. I am not a financially comfortable white person surrounded by black poverty; I am a white person with an average income, surrounded by Taiwanese/Chinese people, of which most adults very likely have more money in the bank than me. The dominant group in this country where I have been living for almost twenty years also has a monopoly on political power.

Therefore, I find the idea outrageous that a minority group should make sure that they are friendly and polite enough, and modest enough and careful enough with their words when dealing with members of a majority group. As I have already explained, I find it even dangerous, and irresponsible, considering how full history is of how people begin to act if the scale tilts too far to the one side in terms of power dynamics.

______________________

You are responsible for what happens to you

WEDNESDAY, 2 JANUARY 2019

I was on my way home on my bicycle after buying dinner. A blue truck blocked the entrance to the alley in which I wanted to go down. I went around the truck, knowing that I had to be careful because I couldn’t see who was coming down the alley on the other side of the truck. As I got to the other side, there was indeed a man on a scooter riding at high speed in my direction.

I thought: “If I collided with this guy, I would blame the driver of the blue truck.”

Then I thought: “No. It would have been your fault. It is your responsibility to consider and deal with such risks.”

As thoughts roll around in one’s brain, another thought struck soon after: Imagine you take this idea further, stating that you are always responsible for what happens to you. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night when you and your family are sleeping, you are responsible for that. How? You could have secured your home better. If you’re hijacked on the way home, you are responsible for that. Why were you in that place at that time of the day? What countermeasures did you have in place? If you did have countermeasures in place, it was clearly not enough.

It gets worse. If you get assaulted late at night … why didn’t you have a weapon with you? Why were you alone, in that place? Why didn’t you apply self-defence techniques? If you don’t know any self-defence techniques, why not?

It seems as if, with this kind of thinking, one wants to absolve the wrong-doer from his nefarious action or behaviour. Not at all. For example, if the man or woman being attacked in the street crushes the assailant’s testicles and he is never able to conceive children, then he did not fulfil his responsibility to himself. If he gets arrested, and he goes to jail and he is sexually abused by other prisoners, he can only blame himself for it.

The frightening aspect of this way of thinking is that you realise you can’t just blame someone else for your own accidents or hardships. When think about it for a second, you also realise that it means you have much more power in your hands than you might have imagined. The person who is afraid of being assaulted can immediately begin to look at weapons that can be carried on their person – from a gun to pepper spray. The responsible adult who wants to safeguard their home and family has the ability to do much better than they are likely doing at present. And the man or woman with criminal intentions who doesn’t want to be sexually abused in prison has the free will to not commit criminal acts.

Think along these lines, and you ultimately think of yourself as an agent of change, as someone with the abilities to rearrange the world to a large extent in a way that suits you. It also means that you will develop the character to accept responsibility when a lesser person would blame someone else.

WEDNESDAY, 9 JANUARY 2019

Exactly one week later …

SUNDAY, 27 JANUARY 2019

Another insight gained from a traffic situation …

One easily gets filled with bitterness about something other people do to you. And every time someone did something to you and got away with it, you feel even more powerless. And even more filled with bitterness.

“It’s your responsibility,” emerged the phrase again late this afternoon – specifically as a reminder that I had to walk closer to the side of a narrow alley to avoid getting flattened by one of the reckless scooter drivers.

Then I realised: Every time you think something that somebody else has done to you was your responsibility, you take power away from that person, and give it to yourself. You also give yourself more responsibility, to be honest, and more opportunity to be blamed for a situation. But you also give yourself more power to create your own life as you see fit, and more power to protect yourself from what threatens you.

______________________

On religion, and the value delivered by a legend

SUNDAY, 30 DECEMBER 2018

11:00

Read an article this morning that argues that God is imagination – not like imagination, but that God is in actual fact Imagination.

Any case, the part that I really liked was the author’s classification of religion with science fiction, ghost stories, and astrology: “I was expelled from the Paradise of innocence that long ago summer, but imagination never abandoned me. It sank underground throughout my teen years in a voracious appetite for reading, especially science fiction, and hooked itself tenaciously to anything in popular culture that left it room to breathe — religion, ghost stories, astrology, the New Age …”

It reminded me that people who are believers, even in the most traditional sense, have a desire for something more – something beyond this sometimes boring, sometimes monotonous, sometimes horrible, and sometimes sad life. I can even see how such a person could see someone who doesn’t believe in God as one without imagination, even narrow-minded.

This is a positive view of religion – that it is creative, characteristic of a person with a lively imagination.

My problem with religion as I know it, and as it was taught to me as a child, is the strong association with prescriptions and doctrines, which simply must be believed if you want to escape eternal damnation. This manifestation of religion is all but creative – after all, it shows a bold red, ominous “No!” to anything that crosses the line. It does require imagination. It asks you to open your head (or your “heart”) and be prepared to believe in something you can’t see. However, it requires of you to use your imagination just enough to accept what the so-called holy texts prescribe, or what the authorities in the faith community teach you to believe. If you give your imagination free rein, you’re looking for trouble. The “truth” has already been “revealed” – why wonder about things that can only cause problems?

16:11

It’s a cloudy day, with the temperature in the low twenties. I’m in Kaohsiung’s West Bay (Sizihwan) – about 25 minutes from our apartment by bicycle, at the National Sun Yat-sen Alumni House – on the quay overlooking the Taiwan Strait. Except for the sea, my view also includes the great rock with the lighthouse on the peak – in my opinion one of Kaohsiung’s best natural attractions, the mountain at the university, and a variety of people.

My snacks include small tomatoes, a banana, and a filo dough cookie with butter and sugar on the inside that a student gave me on Thursday night. I started my audio session with two Wealth & Mindset podcast episodes, and then moved on to Bruce Springsteen’s Darkness on the Edge of Town.

All in all, it’s been my best Sunday bicycle outing of the year.

* * *

The second podcast episode I listened to spoke of value that one should deliver if you wanted to make money.

As I was listening to the first two Springsteen tracks afterward, I remembered what I had read what reviewers wrote about him when his debut album appeared in the early seventies: that his lyrics reminded them of Bob Dylan, and his singing style to that of Van Morrison. In other words, there was no Springsteen yet as people know him today, just someone who wrote songs like one well-known singer, and who sang like another famous singer.

What did he do? He kept writing songs, and he kept singing, and eventually found his own place in the sun.

But what made him a legend, not to mention millions of dollars? He created value over and over for people who paid to see him perform. He told stories. He sang his heart out. Unlike some groups or singers, he didn’t only come out on stage and sang his fifteen or twenty songs before he disappeared again. He would keep going night after night for three or four hours. And night after night, concert-goers felt they were experiencing something special.

That’s what Springsteen gave people. And that made him not only a creative and commercial success, it made him a legend.

______________________

On time, writing, thoughts, books, my father, and tradition

WEDNESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 2018

Chris Rempel, a marketer whose newsletter I signed up for several years ago, says about time: “[In] business, focus as much on earning time as you do on earning money. And when the money does come in, use it to further guard your time by choosing investments that aren’t ‘jobs in disguise’.”

What that says to me is that you should, almost as a matter of routine, look at look how you spend the hours of each day, and have a conversation with yourself that looks like the following:

“Is there any way we can liberate that hour?”

“Which hour?”

“That one, between 18:00 and 19:00. Is there any way we can pay someone else to do what we do then? Or, isn’t there a better way to do what we do then? Or is there no other way we can get the same result (probably money) by doing something that takes up less of our time?”

SATURDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2018

What is my writing about?

I have a deep-seated need to understand myself, and also to understand the world in which I live out my daily existence, and to make as much of the one life I have as I possibly can.

Then, when I think I’ve sorted something out or received some decent insight, I have a strong need to share it with people. Writing has always registered in my head as a good way to do this.

WEDNESDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2018

Eventually, I would be able to say that the process of becoming financially independent has been enjoyable, stimulating, fulfilling, and extremely interesting, as virtually everything I have read and applied came down to improving myself.

THURSDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2018

First coherent thought after waking up this morning: “I have to change ‘just reasonable’ to ‘still reasonable’. (In reference to a title, “Did I swallow the red pill, or am I just reasonable?”)

Here I am now, a few hours later, and I still think it’s a good idea. But did I really get the idea the moment I woke up? I don’t think so. I think it was already in my mind yesterday, but too many other thoughts had blocked it. When I woke up this morning, there was no blockage – and the idea was exposed, in a manner of speaking.

Must be why so many people say good things about meditation.

SATURDAY, 15 DECEMBER 2018

I can summarise what I have learned about financial matters this year under three headings:

One: Financial intelligence: What is money? How do banks really do business? Where and how should you invest your money?

Two: Technical aspects of making receiving money: To open a business, follow these steps … or, to trade on the financial markets, start here …

Three: Wealth mindset – sorts under Positive Mindset/Positive Psychology

Useful to keep in mind when considering books about personal finances. Few books cover more than one of these areas.

TUESDAY, 18 DECEMBER 2018

My dad is ultimately my hero. In spite of setbacks that would have pushed many other men over the abyss, he simply picked himself up every time, and kept on walking. That is how I want to be. And not only did he keep walking, he did it with joy. And not with fake joy because he believes he should keep up appearances – I’m talking about a stubborn, resilient joy.

THURSDAY, 20 DECEMBER 2018

I’m reading [an Afrikaans book, the title of which translates as “Communion weekend over the years”] by Professor Bun Booyens. I once again realise: The religion of the Afrikaner involves a great deal of tradition – in fact, many folk traditions of the Afrikaner are religious in nature.

It therefore follows that when I abandoned the religious beliefs of my youth, I also renounced important traditions of the cultural group in which I was born and raised.

But what alternative did I have? Tradition is important – without it, it is more difficult to feel connected to your ancestors. But how could I continue to respect the religious traditions of my ancestors if its metaphysical foundation was no longer credible to me? I mean, is dishonesty a traditional value?

______________________