Tag: politics

Two possibilities and a few questions about accepting responsibility

SUNDAY, 14 MARCH 2021

Possibility one:

We are largely responsible for how we experience life. We don’t usually choose what happens to us, but we have to a significant degree control over how we respond to what happens to us, and therefore we have some control over what impact it has on our lives.

This would mean that people who were on the wrong side of government policy, such as during the apartheid years in South Africa, or similar periods in America, also had a significant degree of control over their reactions. Other people were responsible for the unethical and sometimes cruel policies, but the people on the wrong side of it had control over how they reacted to it, and this reaction – from acceptance to armed opposition – in turn influenced their experience of reality.

Possibility two:

We have no control to any significant degree over how we experience life. We have no control over what happens to us, and our reactions have little impact. Plus, our reactions and attitudes towards what happens to us are anyways largely dictated by our culture and how we have been programmed since childhood. This means people on the receiving end of unethical policies and cruel governments and other institutions that exercise power over them are victims who have to take what comes their way. That’s just how it is. Sometimes you’re on top, and sometimes you get crushed, and then you die.

The questions:

Which of the two views on life would ideologues of Apartheid South Africa have preferred black and brown people embrace in the decades prior to the 1990s? You have the power to do something about your suffering, or accept your fate?

Which of the two views on life would ideologues of the resistance movements during the apartheid years, people like Nelson Mandela and Steve Biko, have preferred black and brown people embraced? What about civil rights leaders in America in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries – people like Frederick Douglass, Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. du Bois, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King? Did they think people had the ability to improve their experience of reality, or did they believe people simply had to accept their fate?

* * *

For the record, the person who commits a crime, or who plans or executes an unjust political or social order, does so out of free will. He does not have to do it. He chooses to do so and is therefore morally and legally responsible for his actions.

* * *

A fundamental aspect of this whole discussion was articulated by Scott Adams a few years ago after Kanye West made headlines over his remarks about slavery. In response to someone else who said Kanye West was guilty of “disgusting victim blaming”, Adams said: “I believe the proposition on the table is that giving yourself a victim identity is less productive than looking forward.”

* * *

Steve Biko, Malcolm X and even W.E.B. du Bois were not exactly non-racial integrationists. One could even argue that especially Steve Biko and Malcolm X (at least earlier in his career) were Black Supremacists. What I say about victim mentality, historical oppression, accepting responsibility even for your own suffering as a way to empower yourself is not affected at all. If you think non-racial integration is more ideal, you might have a problem with Biko or X. But at least they had a positive outlook on the future, right? They looked at a future where black and brown people would do better because they would actively create a better future for themselves, which included convincing white people with political and bureaucratic power that a more just order is better for all.

Quotes from Steve Biko (1946-1977)

“Obviously the only path open for us now is to redefine the message in the bible and to make it relevant to the struggling masses. The bible must not be seen to preach that all authority is divinely instituted. It must rather preach that it is a sin to allow oneself to be oppressed.”

“So as a prelude whites must be made to realise that they are only human, not superior. Same with Blacks. They must be made to realise that they are also human, not inferior.”

“The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”

“It becomes more necessary to see the truth as it is if you realise that the only vehicle for change are these people who have lost their personality. The first step therefore is to make the black man come to himself; to pump back life into his empty shell; to infuse him with pride and dignity, to remind him of his complicity in the crime of allowing himself to be misused and therefore letting evil reign supreme in the country of his birth.”

Quotes from Malcom X (1925-1965)

“Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it.”

“Any time you beg another man to set you free, you will never be free. Freedom is something that you have to do for yourselves.”

“No, we are not anti-white. But we don’t have time for the white man. The white man is on top already, the white man is the boss already … He has first-class citizenship already. So you are wasting your time talking to the white man. We are working on our own people.”

Quotes from Marcus Garvey (1887-1940)

“Ambition is the desire to go forward and improve one’s condition. It is a burning flame that lights up the life of the individual and makes him see himself in another state. To be ambitious is to be great in mind and soul. To want that which is worthwhile and strive for it. To go on without looking back, reaching to that which gives satisfaction.”

“The man who is not able to develop and use his mind is bound to be the slave of the other man who uses his mind.”

“The white man has succeeded in subduing the world by forcing everybody to think his way. The white man’s propaganda has made him the master of the world, and all those who have come in contact with it and accepted it have become his slaves.”

“Liberate the minds of men and ultimately you will liberate the bodies of men.”

“Before we can properly help the people, we have to destroy the old education … that teaches them that somebody is keeping them back and that God has forgotten them and that they can’t rise because of their color … we can only build … with faith in ourselves and with self-reliance, believing in our own possibilities, that we can rise to the highest in God’s creation.”

Quotes from Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)

“We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and the future.”

“No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.”

“I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.”

______________________

What is the ideological basis of your thinking?

MONDAY, 20 APRIL 2020

16:00

What is the ideological basis of what you think, say, or write, or what you believe or argue?

For some people, it is a belief that we live in an unequal, unjust world, and that it is everyone’s moral duty to do everything in their power to make things more equal and more just. People who argue from this basis divide people into groups: primary offenders and accomplices to injustice; victims of injustice; and people (like themselves) who used to be complicit in injustice, or who reckon they benefitted from injustice, but who now try to make everything better – and make up for the sins of their ancestors.

My ideological basis is that adults who do not suffer from mental defects are free agents responsible for their own lives. This includes the son of a wealthy industrialist, as well as the poor daughter of a shoe shiner who grew up in a slum. Of course, these two individuals grew up in radically different environments, with different programming, and different ideas and feelings about the world and their place in the world, and about their future. Is the poor person a victim of circumstances? Yes, she is. Does she nevertheless have the ability to make decisions every day – from small decisions that will accumulate into significant improvements over time to big decisions that will make a radical difference to her life in the short term? To believe that she does not have this ability is to see her as a pathetic child who will not survive if she is not helped by people more fortunate than her.

21:49

Am I saying you should shrug your shoulders and tell the person in a bad situation, “Your problem. I did not tell you to flee from your city torn apart by armed conflict”? No, what I am saying is this: Help anyone get out of a burning building – no discrimination; not in terms of skin colour, political opinion, or religion. And when you’re out of the building and it’s within my means to assist you, I’ll give you shelter and food and water, and whatever else you need to get back on your feet.

But from Moment Number One, I’m going to look at you as an adult capable of moving mountains if the will is there. And if the will is not there, and you decide to become dependent on other people’s goodness in the long run, I will make the argument that limited resources should rather be used to save other people from burning buildings.

Fact is, I see people as fantastic creatures that can do incredible things if they decide they are going to do something. I believe we create our own reality to a great extent, and then we experience this reality and have feelings about it. There are people who look at certain individuals and see them as pathetic creatures who need to be saved and taken care of. I see people who sometimes need to be helped out of a burning building, but then only need to be supported to continue taking responsibility for their own lives. And if they don’t want to take responsibility for their own lives, it’s their business, not mine.

* * *

If someone knocks on my door on a particularly cold night and asks for shelter, and I know there is no facility for this purpose nearby, I will offer this person a warm bed, food and something to drink, and a place in the living room so he can watch TV with us. If it dawns on me that it won’t be for just one day, I will explain that if the person is going to stay on in our home, it will be according to our house rules. Examples of rules will include time when lights will be turned off and everyone will retire to their rooms, and the volume at which music can be listened to. Reasonable stuff; nothing draconian. If the person flouts the rules – for example, if he watches TV until the early morning hours or have loud phone calls after midnight, I’ll explain the rules again. If he is still unwilling to comply, I will show him the door. Why? Because he will have shown a lack of respect for me and my household. Because he does not believe it is his responsibility to make his own life better.

Here’s an alternative scenario: I offer him shelter. At the end of the first week, he mentions that he sees I take out the garbage twice a week, and he offers to do it from then on. Or he notices that I go out every day to buy dinner and mentions that he can cook, and that if I give him X amount of money, he will go to the supermarket to buy ingredients and cook for everyone in the household every day. If he also respects the house rules, chances are that he will be able to stay until he feels things are of such a nature that he can return to where he came from, or until he is ready to get his own place. Even then, I will help him however I can – if he needs my help.

It is also possible that this person is religious. Let’s say he is a Muslim, and I notice that he goes to his room five times a day, rolls open a rug on the floor, and prays. I will respect that and make sure I don’t disturb him at that time. However, if he insists that my wife and daughter cover their heads when we all go out, I will make it clear that this is not our custom. If he becomes agitated about it, he can look for another place to stay – that same day.

WEDNESDAY, 22 APRIL 2020

What type of ideology gives the most hope to a young man in, say, El Salvador, or Afghanistan? The ideology that says you are responsible for your own life, and that you are capable of creating your own happiness, well-being, and positive future … or the ideology that tries to convince the young man that his dilemma is not his fault, that he is a victim of structural racism, that rich people, or white people, or people with more power than him, owe him happiness, well-being and a positive future?

If I were that young man, I would take the aforementioned ideology any day of the week. I would try to sneak across the border in the middle of the night, and if I arrived in Texas, or in Arizona or California, or Italy, Germany, or England, I would do everything in my power to stay out of trouble; I would stay away from criminal groups; I would try to get a job and save money. If I met a woman and we like each other, I would get married and start a small business with her. This is what I would do if I believed I was responsible for my own life, and that I had the ability to create my own well-being and prosperity.

Would there have been hardships? Of course. Would there have been obstacles? Yes. But I would have used my mind and my energy to survive hardships and overcome obstacles. Would I end up back in El Salvador or Afghanistan if the authorities arrested and deported me, as they have the right to do? That would always be a possibility. But would I still rather dare to believe in my own ability to create a good life? Definitely. Would I prefer that to believing other people owe me something, and that I just have to wait for political pressure groups to bring about a good life for me? Absolutely.

______________________

The consequences of believing in responsibility for your own life

MONDAY, 13 JANUARY 2020

Taking responsibility for your own life is, the more I think about it, an extremely dangerous opinion to hold in the Politically Correct/Crazy Culture War Era.

If you draw taking responsibility to its logical conclusions, the slave was partly responsible for his own slavery, and so-called non-white groups in South Africa were partly responsible for their own suffering and sometimes miserable lives during the pre-1994 era.

Of course, the slave owner had the authority of the colonial establishment on his side. But if we only look at the history of slavery in North America and the Caribbean, we see that thousands of slaves did claim their freedom, and in many cases lived out the rest of their earthly existence as non-slaves – though they always had to be on the lookout for enemies who wanted to lead them back to slavery (see the Haitian Revolution, and the Maroons in Jamaica).

The South African apartheid state was also powerful, and many so-called non-whites who resisted the white state were killed – sometimes brutally. But there were at least eight non-white people for every single white person in the decades before 1994! If non-whites in more significant numbers refused to allow white political leaders to dictate to them how and where and with whom they should live, what could the white state and the white minority who supported them have done about it? Some people say there would have been a blood bath, ten or a hundred times worse than Sharpeville in 1960 or Soweto in 1976. But was violence the only solution? India during the British colonial era is also an interesting case: How did fewer than 200,000 British soldiers and officials succeed in subjugating to their authority a population of more than 200 million Indians?

Is there a middle ground between, “I am not in control of my own life and am therefore a victim of anyone who is stronger than me, or who convinces me that he is stronger than me” on the one hand, and on the other hand, “Over my dead body will I allow you to master it over me”?

It still feels like I’m caught up in a political and socio-cultural dilemma. I believe that, as a relatively intelligent adult, I am largely responsible for how I experience my existence. I further believe that all relatively intelligent adults are to a large extent responsible for how they experience their existence. But if this is true, how on earth can I continue to believe that 80% of the population of South Africa were victims before 1994?! Were my parents and other white people before them so breathtakingly powerful? What type of magic did they practice?!

I believe many children and grandchildren of people who suffered before 1994 because they were black or brown or Indian have already become wise to the truth: that the white man and woman were not really that powerful. That their parents and grandparents and other ancestors did not push back hard enough when the whites dictated terms. A critical percentage of black, brown and Indian South Africans mostly accepted the dictated terms, hoping a miracle would occur in the future that would save them. I believe that many children and grandchildren of black and brown and Indian South Africans who suffered before 1994 are deeply upset with their parents and their parents’ parents, but because they love them, they have created a caricature that can be more easily criticised, and on whose shoulders all the blame can be placed.

Afterthoughts

Tuesday, 28 July 2020

One: There were indeed numerous examples of individuals and organisations in South African history, just in the period 1910 to 1990, who realised what a big problem psychology was – that a significant percentage of white people believed it was their right to rule over other groups, and that a significant percentage of non-white South Africans also believed that this should be the case. These people and organisations understood that education was a key to a better future, that what Marcus Garvey (1887-1940) had written should be applied: “We are going to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery, for though others may free the body, none but ourselves can free the mind.” One of the biggest proponents of better mentality was Steven Biko (1946-1977). No wonder the apartheid state was eager to get rid of him. There were also numerous attempts to get thousands of people involved in campaigns against the apartheid state, including in non-violent marches and protests. Eventually, apartheid did come to an end, and was replaced by a more democratic order. Why? Because a critical percentage of the white population accepted that they did not have a right to rule over other groups, and a critical percentage of black, brown and Indian South Africans came to see not being able to choose who rules over them as an undermining of their rights. A massive psychological shift among all the population groups of South Africa therefore had to take place before reality could change for everyone. By 1994, this shift had taken place, and the reality changed.

Two: White people who took actions that actively hindered other South Africans’ hopes and efforts to lead good lives (including National Party politicians, officials who carried out government policies, and members of the security police) were fallible people who gained positions of power, and who learned day by day that they were getting away with the abuse of their power. A significant number believed their cause was just – a fight against Communism, and therefore for the Christian faith and Western civilisation. Many of these white agents of the apartheid state, these perpetrators of a morally corrupt ideology, were otherwise good people – people who loved their spouses and children, and who were good sons and daughters to their elderly parents. It is this complexity I cannot ignore when people present a simplified history where on the one hand you had powerful evil monsters, and on the other hand poor powerless victims who could only hope for a better day.

Wednesday, 29 July 2020

1. There’s this impression – that people suffer and complain, but don’t do enough to change their circumstances, or to improve their lot. Later, when other people changed their circumstances for them, they tend to favour a narrative that hides the fact that they didn’t take more initiative to improve their own lot.

2. I believe in the enormous capacity of the individual – and when enough members work together, the collective capacity of the community – to improve their own circumstances and their own experience of reality. Often, people fail to do this. But acknowledge it then. To opt for a narrative that portrays yourself, or the ethnic, or cultural, or socio-political group of which you’re a member as poor victims, does incredible damage to your own perceived capacity to improve your circumstances and your experience of reality. What message do you send to younger, impressionable people who are forming ideas of what they’re capable of? Too many people opt for anger at some perceived almighty other group that have somehow monopolised political, economic, and cultural power, and have managed to sustain it for decades or even centuries. Are these people powerful wizards? Do they practice some other-worldly magic? Chances are that you are exaggerating their power and ability in order to conceal your own poor record of doing better.

Sunday, 16 August 2020

I’m returning to this piece yet again because it’s easy to misunderstand – or maybe I haven’t made myself clear enough.

So, hopefully just one last time, three points:

1. Afrikaners, and other white people in pre-1994 South Africa, did have political, economic, and military power, but their power was not unlimited. An acceptance – for all practical purposes, even if people didn’t like it – of the political and social order during apartheid, and before that, among all the population groups of South Africa was the most powerful instrument in the hands of the white government.

2. Embracing a victim identity is less valuable than accepting that whatever happened to you or your family might not have happened if you had tried harder to avoid it – if you had taken more responsibility for your own situation. Now – no one needs to point out to me that it sounds like victim blaming. There is never an issue of placing less blame on the offender, and more blame on the victim. The offender is guilty and deserves to be punished for what they have done to another person. Offenders must take responsibility and suffer the consequences for their actions. But if the victim could have done nothing to avoid or reduce their pain and suffering, they are one hundred percent victim – one hundred percent powerless. This is the highest level of victimhood. Someone messed with your life, and there was nothing – nothing! – you could do about it. It is tragic that every day there are such cases in every country, and every city and town and sometimes farm and hamlet in the world. This is what happens to children who depend on adults for protection, and for making good decisions. This is also what happens to old people who are no longer in control of their lives. This type of victimhood is terrible because not only does it involve pain and suffering and loss, it also reminds you every day that you think about it that you were absolutely powerless to change any aspect of it. People can criticise me all they want, but I simply do not accept that millions of adult black and brown and Indian South Africans before 1994 were one hundred percent powerless victims. Children, yes. But once you are old enough to be in control of your own movements and decisions, you have choices. Thousands of slaves decided to escape during the period of slavery in the Western colonies. Millions decided to stay on the plantation instead because the risk was too great. There are people who claim that to say they decided to stay implies that they chose to be slaves. I say: at least I see them as rational people who made choices, even if the options were limited. I do not see them as brainless bodies. I see them as people who faced a terrible choice and who chose the less life-threatening option. However, were there slaves who accepted the social order where they were slaves and white people their masters as God-given? I believe there were many people with this mindset who eventually had to be freed from their mental slavery. Taking some responsibility for your past situation is empowering. It tells the one who played god over you that he or she was not really as powerful as they thought they were. It says: “My own failure to push back harder, or to push back more effectively, made it easier for you. Don’t see me as a victim anymore, because the other side of the coin is that I have to admit you were smarter, stronger, and more powerful than I was.”

3. I have friends and family who see themselves as allies of the suffering black man and woman. A black man or woman’s success is celebrated when a similar success would not be celebrated if the person was white. This idea of looking at a person, and deducing from his or her skin colour, or gender, or sexual orientation that they are victims of someone else’s personal power, is intolerable to me – intolerable! And if you listen to what many black people say, they also find it intolerable, and insulting. I can’t for the moment quote a specific black person who said it in so many words, but I am sure the following sentiment is widespread among black people who follow these trends: “Don’t see me as a victim. You and your ancestors were not really that powerful. I – and my ancestors, made mistakes, and did not push back hard enough, or smart enough.”

______________________

A topic I don’t really want to think about

FRIDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2019

15:58

What follows is the most recent note on a topic I don’t really want to think about. If more than ten people regularly read what I write, notes on this subject will definitely get me in trouble. Nobody – but especially not white people, and then especially not white men – is supposed to form any thoughts on this subject that are not in line with approved mainstream ideology. “Why would you after all have any other types of thoughts about it?” anyone might ask. “Are you a bad person? Are you wicked? Are you the devil?”

As is often the case with normal people, thoughts form in my head while I’m in the shower, or on my way somewhere. And because I’m not in the habit of placing a proverbial guard at the gate of my mind, all sorts of strange questions come up. And seeing that the question was then asked, I must address it. Or, I certainly don’t need to address it – especially when I know we’re only supposed to have pre-approved thoughts on certain topics. But I will be constantly aware that it is on the table and that I am ignoring it.

Anyway, here’s the thought. How did the policy known as Apartheid become the reality for so many people – of all races – in South Africa, between at least 1948 and 1990?

A simple explanation is that Apartheid was allowed to become and remain the practical reality for so long because the majority of the population – and the majority of the population were black people – had accepted Apartheid. Naturally people had a negative view of the policy and the political leaders they held responsible, but a critical percentage of the affected population accepted it as the way their society was managed.

Why was Apartheid eventually replaced by a better policy? Because a critical minority among the black population, with allies among other population groups, did not accept Apartheid, and dedicated their lives to undermining it and destroying it as a framework and policy by which the state was governed and the population controlled. This critical minority, which included people like Nelson Mandela and other leaders of the anti-Apartheid movement in the fifties and sixties, as well as Steve Biko and other activists in the seventies and eighties, but also thousands of other leaders who had close ties with the community on a daily basis, finally convinced a critical percentage of the population that they should be supported in their efforts to end Apartheid, and that everything would be better for them when they, the new leaders, were in control of the state.

16:49

The fact is, almost thirty years after the end of Apartheid, there are still white people who believe that Apartheid was “not so bad”, and that “even black people were happier under Apartheid than under a black government”. And there are black people who believe that they were passive victims of something bigger than them, and that they could mostly just wait until their leaders rectified the matter. Both of these opinions are wrong because the truth is a bitter pill to swallow.

(By the way, never trust an academic who doesn’t have a source of income that is independent of the institution, school, or university where they work. By the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century, it is common knowledge that academic institutions follow political agendas, and if academics do not endorse the dominant political ideology, their salaries – with which they pay rent and buy food and clothes – are at stake.)

TUESDAY 26 DECEMBER 2019

12:48

Does it make the misdeeds of the man who physically abuses his wife less evil because she stays with him day after day, month after month rather than escaping with her life?

No.

But what message does it send to women in abusive relationships to refer to them as powerless victims? What hope does it give to women in such relationships?

In the end, you are left with two options:

Option 1: See the woman as a powerless victim. In this case women who never left their abusive husbands don’t have to feel that they could have done anything to improve their own situations. The message to women who are currently involved in such relationships is that they should just hope someone saves them. Because they themselves are powerless.

Option 2: See the woman in a relationship with a man who is physically and emotionally abusive as someone with the ability to do something about it. She would probably have to be smart and courageous to protect herself and possibly her children, but she does have the ability and power to improve her life. This is good news for women who are currently trapped in such a relationship. But the message to the woman who had been in such a relationship in the past, and only got away because her husband died or something else happened to him, is that she could have done something about her situation – but unfortunately never got that far because perhaps she always thought of herself as powerless.

* * *

Seeing that I’m already politically incorrect, and stepping on sensitive toes, another question: When did the oppression of the black population begin in South Africa? Libraries full of research have been done on this, and perhaps my argument could be shot down with a battery of artillery fire from people smarter than me.

At this point I must also make clear that I am referring specifically to the black tribes and other black groups as was known to political leaders and white citizens in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

The history of power politics between white people and coloured people in mainly the Western Cape, between white people and the San in initially the Southern and Eastern Cape, and between white and Indian people in originally KwaZulu-Natal, is different from the history between white groups and various black tribes and nations. Slaves revolted from time to time. The San waged guerrilla war against white farmers and communities. The Griquas forged alliances with other groups and also came into military conflict with white communities on their own.

But between whites and blacks, there were at least a dozen conflicts that qualified as war. There were the nine border wars in the Eastern Cape, and a few uprisings. There were three wars between the Basotho and the citizens of the Free State. There were several bloody wars between the Voortrekkers and later citizens of the Transvaal and Natal and the Ndebele under Mzilikazi, and the Zulus under Dingaan and later other leaders. And then there were several wars between British colonial powers and the Ndebele, and the Zulus. Most of these military conflicts had come to an end by 1880. Up to this time, black and white fought each other as equals. One could argue that white soldiers had guns and cannons, but black warriors had other advantages, not to mention the fact that they could also get their hands on guns – and did use them, as in the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879.

My point here is that I have difficulty swallowing the narrative of the black person in South Africa as a powerless victim of white domination for 300 years. This narrative clearly has political value in the South Africa of the twenty-first century, but I find it extremely strange when people dismiss as insignificant the military power of black nations in the eighteenth and especially nineteenth century. Have these people never read descriptions of Xhosa or Zulu warriors? Have they never read of the military victories that Mzilikazi and Moshoeshoe achieved over white commandos?

My question is again: The oppression of blacks by whites that was such a feature of twentieth-century South African society – when did this chapter begin in the conflict between whites and blacks in Southern Africa? I think the 1880s are a good place to look for an answer.

My next question: After at least a century of sometimes successful resistance – where armed warriors stood against armed militias, how did it happen that the oppression of black people was carried out so extensively after 1880?

14:25

I don’t see black people in South Africa as long-suffering historical victims. There were events like Sharpeville in 1960 and Soweto in 1976, and there were government policies like the passbooks and forced removals, but those were all in the last hundred years. When I think of historical black figures, I see the Xhosa warrior on the Eastern Frontier; I see the imposing figures of Mzilikazi and Moshoeshoe; I see the intimidating figure of the Zulu warrior on the green hills of Natal; I see intellectuals like Sol Plaatje and Steven Biko; I see political leaders like Oliver Tambo, Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, and their wives Winnie Mandela and Albertina Sisulu. I see the period 1880-1990 as a historical anomaly during which a critical percentage of black adults in South Africa seemingly accepted that they were second-class citizens of their country of birth, and when a critical percentage of black adults accepted that their children would become factory workers, gardeners, road workers and domestic helpers rather than engineers, doctors, dentists, scientists, and academics.

______________________

A few political paragraphs

FRIDAY, 18 JANUARY 2019

Ultimately, what is “Black”? Is it skin colour? Is it language? Is it culture? Will a point finally be reached where there is a Black Hierarchy? Where you are 10/10 Black, or 7/10, or maybe just 5.5, and where you have to be a minimum of 7.5 to qualify for the appropriation of property and other resources? Will it happen that black South Africans with the “wrong” opinions are rejected as not-really-black? After all, historical precedent has already been set in America (read here and here), where black Americans with conservative opinions, who do not support the Democratic Party, are considered by some liberals (including white liberals) to be traitors to their race, and outcasts from the community of “true” African-Americans.

THURSDAY, 31 JANUARY 2019

I understand young black students wearing T-shirts with statements like, “Kill all whites!” (And again, for the record, understand does not mean approve. It applies so much more in this case.) I don’t think it’s just anger towards white people. They are confused about their own parents, and the generations that came before them. It’s as if they want to say: “Explain it to us again: Why didn’t you push back harder against a minority government despite having numbers on your side – and the power of your labour! Why wasn’t your resistance more robust?”

FRIDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2019

A significant percentage of black South Africans in the late nineteenth century and most of the twentieth century fell for the “confidence trick” of White Supremacy (as many former citizens of the Boer Republics also fell for the splendour of the new British and English-speaking elite after the Second War of Independence [1899-1902]). And their children and grandchildren today are angry, and susceptible to racist politics – “Kill the white man” and so on, because among other things, they are ashamed of their parents and grandparents’ gullibility.

______________________