After being criticised for the title of my previous blog I thought it necessary to write a response. Perhaps some of the readers of Thought Leader are so very worried about race that they carry around a little race injection to squeeze into unsuspecting blog posts whenever they can. Crafty of them, but endlessly tireless for people who are trying to critique issues that are not related to race. (Do not gasp so loudly — there are things that are not related to race in South Africa). Sometimes issues aren’t as black and white as you’d like to make them out to be.
For those of you who haven’t read it, my post was about President Zuma criticising former president Mbeki’s position on HIV/Aids during his time as president. The article was titled “The pot calling the kettle black!“. Perhaps idioms are difficult for some people to understand. It’s really not as simple as pulling out a word you recognise and thinking that it can directly translate. So let’s start from the beginning shall we.
The saying “the pot calling the kettle black” has two interpretations. Both are really useful here. The first interpretation suggests that the idiom is used when someone accuses someone of something that they are guilty of themselves. It is basically a pretty way of saying that someone is a hypocrite, a misleader and is unjustifiably criticising someone. So in my article, I was saying that President Zuma had no right to criticise Mbeki, on the grounds that both of them were guilty of Aids denialism and misinformation.
The second interpretation is slightly less applicable, but we can work on it. Imagine a dirty pot that has been cooking over a wood-fire, and a nice clean kettle that is shiny. If the pot then calls the kettle black, it is only recognising its own reflection in the pot. So in plain English, the pot is accusing the kettle of something that is only wrong with it. So where President Zuma says that Mbeki had views that were not part of government policy, what he is doing is subtly avoiding the issue that this was a president who was elected by the ANC party themselves. He was part of the leadership of that party. So the criticism he is levelling at Mbeki can actually be levelled at himself. Hey, I said it was a stretch, but there are elements of truth in the issue.
What is irritating for me is that idioms are pretty funky ways to talk about issues without being, well, treasonous. I am accusing a high-level political figure of hypocrisy, in a very pretty way. The issue was NEVER race. The issue in his criticism of Mbeki was not racialised, and nor was my comment. All President Zuma was doing was showing his true colours — that he is a party agent first and foremost.
If South Africans carrying that little race injection that I spoke of before and continue to inject it into discussion when it is not relevant they prevent real engagement with the issue. In short, it results in an analytical black-out. It does not allow us to look at the situation from a number of different angles. All it does is lend colour to the idea that all politics in South Africa is about race, which it isn’t. Do all people have a skin colour? Yes! Should discrimination based on race be stopped? Yes! Is that relevant to a president criticising a former president for acting outside of party doctrine. NO.
I will not stop using an idiom because it has the word black in it. That is verbal censorship of the worst kind. If that makes me a black sheep, so be it.
Brilliant!
Great article! The only way we’ll ever deal and overcome these racial sensitivities is by actually confronting them, talking about them, and calling them out, naming them, as Mamphela Ramphele writes.
Whoever said you should stay away from such idioms is just dumb.
You shouldn’t have even responded to such!
Uhum Jennifer
You were not criticised in your previous article about using THAT idiom. I had a look – it was just Dave Harris. I wouldn’t worry about it. As for the article(s). Good on ya.
@Dave
I am not entirely sure what to make of you, but what I do know as that I am increasingly finding it difficult to take you seriously. You’re a legend, mate (not).
Race is the foundation of the present day South Africa. We were born and bred in it. Politicians based their policy formulation on race and ethnicity. We were therefore conditioned to see everything in either “Black” or “White”. No shade of grey. Talk of a shack-dweller, a township, an enterprise, a killer, a rapist, fight for political power, all these are colour-coded.
If we can’t see you, we analyse your name, or the way you speak, and make our decision. Without second guessing your name, we know where you belong, and read between the lines the word “race” in your writing.
As long as race represents advantages, allocated to it by politics, we will always be on the look-out for anythng resembling it. It is simply our livelihood and we are not going to abandon it very soon because we have nothing else to offer to the “masses” for them to vote us into power – and resources.
That we are all racist – by the mere act of employing race as an organising principle of our everyday life – can never be the case. Race must have a benefit to be meaningful. It cannot be neutral.
Excellent! Jennifer for President! This is commonsense…
Blacklist these whitewashers!!!!
Blacklist these CONVERSATIONALIST whitewashers!
Commenting on the Monica Lewinsky drama, Hillary Clinton famously called her husband, the then-president, “a hard dog to keep on the porch”. In spite of his infidelities, she clearly still loved the guy even if he is “high-maintenance”.
I might swear at my lawnmower when it won’t start and mutter that it’s a bloody “dog” of a thing, implying I hate the trouble it’s causing.
So for English-speakers there’s definitely something just slightly negative about a metaphor involving dogs.
But try out “dog” (inja) on a Zulu and he will go ballistic. It’s just about the foullest, direst insult you can imagine. Metaphorical dogs in isiZulu are obviously far, far more negative than in English.
So the mild rebuke an English speaker intends by using the dog word becomes clear hatespeech when received by a Zulu. Operating outside the comfort of his own native tongue, the receiver of the foreign idiom might well know the literal MEANING of the words but he may be utterly clueless about either the INTENTION or the INTENSITY they carry.
But that is the receiver’s problem. A mother-tongue speaker of any language is surely entitled to employ the full emotional range of his own native language and not be expected to choke it down just to please a stranger or foreigner’s unknown sensitivities. Language learners have a duty to learn the idiomatic meanings of the second language they have chosen to learn from the outside.
I’m sorry that you’re so upset with my comment which I actually thought was a constructive one that did not accuse you of racism but only served as a cautionary note.
The inevitable fallout from centuries of white supremacy and brutal oppression continues to divide us and is only made worse by our insensitivity to each other. Our use of language is also EXTREMELY important in rebuilding our rich diverse society ripped fragmented and polarized by apartheid indoctrination and oppression. Racism taught at an early age is not easy to overcome, since we develop blindspots to our prejudices i.e. we don’t know what we don’t know about our prejudices.
Like the British Empire during imperialism, apartheid preached white supremacy. Over the centuries, this racism became infused with religion and the English language that has had devastating effects on other supposedly “inferior” cultures (African, Chinese, Indians…) that have existed relative peace for thousands of years, regardless of what you may read in your western history books. One of my earlier encounters with this kind of racism on M&G was an article written by a Brit Brendan O’Neill http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/brendanoneill/2009/02/11/the-orwellian-rewriting-of-nursery-rhymes/ who saw nothing wrong in racist nursery rhymes and many of the commentators, whom I presume were of Anglo-Saxon descent, supported him under the pretext of retaining historical traditions and in the name of freedom of speech.
to be continued…
…continued
Remember, nobody is asking to outlaw these subtle or overt racist idioms, nursery rhymes, epithets, jokes etc. However, in the interests of building a society more tolerant and accepting of diversity, isn’t it time we were a tad more sensitive in how we communicate with each other. I expected you to say something along the lines of – “Oh, that surprising,I didn’t think of it that way but I’ll consider it in the future.” but instead you insist that we are too sensitive, and should get over it. Why can’t you show a little humility and accept that we can all do with some sensitivity training given our unique racist history?
Rather than curtly dismissing us as “race-sensitive” try shining the light on your blindspots. Take the time to read Vusi Gumede excellent article on the need for “Africans must confront prejudice and stereotypes”. Have an honest dialog with fellow black SAns to understand how they really feel about being subjected to this kind of language.
Anyway, I’m hopeful you will pause and re-consider your use of language in the future. You can be rest assured that in the interests of Madiba’s vision of a Rainbow Nation, I will to continue to speak out whenever I encounter language that sow the seeds of division. Have a wonderful day.
Agree 150% but we live in a rigidly race based society and wiping out over 50years of rigid legislation is not easy even if the powers who rule us wish to, so be patient and wise.
Suggest use idioms that do not have words like ‘black/white etc’ in them as they seem to be ‘red rags to bulls’ in SA.
A suggestion/easier way is the East’s wise saying, ‘the faults you see in others are your own faults.’
Brent
Explaining yourself to Dave Harris is just silly! Don’t do it again! Keep writing in your style, we enjoy it!
Ag, shame Jenny! Really, you shouldn’t stress. It would be utter stupidity to think that such a neutral idiom would mean something racist.
I agree with you that Zuma is big hypocrite and opportunist. He exploits every opportunity to take a stab at Mbeki (talk about flogging a ‘dead snake’-his words). Here we are talking about a man who said you can shower away an AIDS infection. I would like him to publicly take an HIV test. That is the ONLY way he can prove to us that he is really committed to fighting AIDS.
This is very amusing. Thanks, Jennifer. Keep it up.
Seems a pretty defeinsive blog considering it was only one comment
Dave…my problem is not with your sentiment. For me, language is an extremely powerful way to overcome resistance to diversity and to progress towards a more integrated and peaceful future. I never suggested anything less than this.
What I did suggest is that you are missing the point and taking a phrase out of context. The saying doesn’t mean that black is bad, it could easily be changed to be the tree calling the grass green. The colour is not the centre of the idiom – the sentiment is.
If you refuse to acknowledge this then you are just being tedious.
Jon, what you’ve said is extremely relevant in a country with so many official languages. A simple turn of phrase that is pretty much slang in one can cause serious offence in another.
I don’t think that the responsiblity lies only with the receiver. I think that we should also work with each other to talk about which words make us uncomfortable.
That being said I just think Dave Harris has missed the boat once again. If I had said something that in any way implied something about race, I might take what he said seriously. But at this point, I’m not interested in his rant.
@Jon Cayzer: It is starting to appear as though you have a crush on Jennifer.
Jennifer: I take back what I said in the above comment. I hadn’t read the previous article (have very little time to read blogs) but I still think that you did not intend to sound racist, the idiom being neutral, but using it against a black man may be easily construed as racist and may in fact feed into racist stereotypes. Many racists who comment here could easily miscontrue, manipulate and misuse what is otherwise an innocent idiom.
But on your part, I don’t think you meant any harm this time.
I agree with Dave that you need to be more careful (and creative)with your use of language because, as Edward Said once said; “Sometimes whites say and do racist things without being (fully) aware that what they are saying is racist”. That is why you have people who think that it’s okay to call themselves ‘liberals’ as if they are bing kind to blacks. This means that they become wary and condemnatory of overt forms of racism but find it perfectly acceptable to express subtler forms of racism. Or atleast, they do not check their own racism which may be from a more subliminal level.
So, do not be defensive or try to argue away Dave’s cautionary advice but rather learn to be more open-minded and sensible.
@ Dave: Vusi merely plays the stereotypical old “victimhood” card. Eloquently drawn perhaps, but it’s the same old victimhood card they all play. The two of spades. When hearts are trumps.
Why is the pot black and not green
wouldn’t be to concerned about either dave harris or phillipa, they both get guilt complexes merely from driving on a road as the tar is black, another nasty white supremacist tool to ensure that superiority is maintained..
oh goodness, tyres are black too, more representation?
steering wheel?
mats?
oh no..the bastards..
Jennifer, if you were relating your opinions to an unruly crowd of Zuma sympathizers, would you have used the same idiom? You are being unwisely uncynical at worst and
idealistic at best, by insisting on the correct interpretation of the word black in any idiom in this day and age.
mmm. I wonder if all this subliminal prejudice that white folk seem to suffer from is an exclusively white thing or are others able to suffer from it as well?
@dithebe, I think you’re onto something.
If I remember my privileged camping days, the pot on the fire was a sort of sooty carcoal, not black.
I was green behind the ears thou’…
Chill pill anyone?
The beauty of an idiom is it’s ability to paint meaningful colourful images through it’s sparing use of words. “Pot… kettle… black” does that superbly. (and a web seach tells me we have Don Quixhote to thank for that !)
Perhaps another way of approaching this is to take the point of view held by the writers of SA’s constitution – that we strive for an ideal society. Even if along the way we dispose of things like the death penalty, which is a useful weapon in the arsenal of a country fighting a war on crime, but does not fit into the ideal of a just and humane society. In an ideal society, people whose skin is various shades of brown, who are known as black, and people whose skin varies from white to pink to khaki to brown, who are known as white, would not take offence because a writer or orator mentions these colours in the context of a negative idiom or expression. Also, one needs to consider where the censorship would end. Would university and school curricula need to be examined for text-books or setworks that use such idioms or expressions? It seems to be a silly, polarising and potentially dangerous road to start down.
Jenniffer you do make a lot of sense, I have a challenge for you, will you comment on the sunday times page 5 dated 27/09/09, title: FOR VOLK SAKE. It will be interesting to read your view on this one.
The trouble with this type of over-sensitivity is that eventually people get fed up with it and you’ll end up with a situation like there is in the U.K. with the ultra-racist BNP gaining ground with people who wouldn’t otherwise be interested in them. It’s good to be diplomatic and tactful, but the sort of lunacy that has seen words like “blackboard” outlawed in many countries doesn’t do anyone any good.
Aren’t we all getting a touch dogmatic, then? We all know about taking a horse to water, etc. and snakes in the grass…
Incidentally, I was always taught that the pot and the kettle were both used on the fire (before stoves had been invented) and therefore were both black. Make something of that, Guys!
The initial blog was about AIDS, a far less trivial subject than the colour of prose.
Mncedisi is exactly right when he says ‘if we can’t see you, we analyse your name, or the way you speak and make our decision’. This goes not only for race, but presumtions regarding the perpetrator(s) are evident so often in the SA press. Check out articles which begin with:
‘Three well dressed African gentlemen ‘(robbers), ‘An attractive Hout Bay divorcee’ (loose woman), ‘A former hero of the struggle’ (fraud), ‘Convicted fraudster’ (in trouble again and doesn’t give a damn).
Give me some more, y’all
Justin Cape town
Jon:
@ Dave: Vusi merely plays the stereotypical old “victimhood” card. Eloquently drawn perhaps, but it’s the same old victimhood card they all play. The two of spades. When hearts are trumps.”
Jon, who are THEY? And you are saying THEY ALL.. ?? Puns are being used here, which proves what Dave have pointed out. (spades and hearts)
Commentators always read into blogs and Dave Harris is one of the worst trolls on the site. I hope if we quit feeding him he’ll go away. I howled when I read his response – especially this line “I will to continue to speak out whenever I encounter language that sow the seeds of division…”. He is one of the most divisive voices online.
Many people attack whatever you write based on crude readings and their own blind ideological position. So many loud voices lack critical reasoning or subject their own position to anything resembling reflexivity. Keep up the ‘good’ writing (write well as well, but about moral issues).
Let’s ban chess, dominoes,playing cards,dice,and all other forms of racist symbolism cunningly disguised as harmless gaming objects. And what of that ghastly reminder of imperialism?…..Black tea?
And how about those contentious zebra? Why should they continue to vex us as we try to decide whether they are (primarily)black with white stripes or etc?
And as for the ultimate impostor..the polar bear with its black skin?
And while we are about it, out with the black swan(because all swans should be white.)
Don’t forget bowls!
All those cunning black balls curving stealthily along the green with the sole intention of striking the solitary white.
What about removing all vestiges of white paint off road surfaces where it is forced to bear the humiliation of being over-ridden by black tyres?
Perhaps the term “solid white line” should be used with caution lest some sensitive soul interpret it to be synonymous with European pickets or even worse, European police lines?
In case I am black-listed for my off-coloured remarks or some wag,green with envy, attempts to white-ant the integrity of your article…..
It’s really all redtoric.
@ Dave Harris – You said “…However, in the interests of building a society more tolerant and accepting of diversity, isn’t it time we were a tad more sensitive in how we communicate with each other….”, which I think is a fair comment.
Now be a good fellow and toodle off and tell Julius Malema that.
Jen, keep the blog coming im loving them
Pres JZ (who is black) critisized Mbeki’s (who is black) “black” position on HIV/ AIDS. This is not acceptable to Jennifer. These people are black and their position is black, so why the fuss? They should instead get a “white” if there is to be any difference worth note.
Unfortunately I can’t help either because I am black.
Well, I guess your 3rd interpretation could be a rather comical coincidence that both pot and kettle were actually black in this case. Perhaps you did not mean it but unfortunately for you it works wonderfully in the context of your argument. That, unfortunately plays on race and skin colour and hence your response. Oops. I wouldn’t stress, people need to lighten up and move on.
I guess some idioms or titles in some situations are best avoided unless you want to create an outcry. Some slip past the goalie though. Shilo Pitt comes to mind. Guessing Brad and Angelina didn’t spot that one either but he is going to have it tough at school regardless.
Forge ahead and disregard the PC knobs. They are actually the ones that need to assess their response, not you.
Dithabana, if you want to embarrass yourself and say that the position that HIV does not cause AIDS, and that AIDS and HIV can be cured by a diet of beetroot and madumbis, is a black position, then I just don’t even know what we are going to do with you.
@Chris in Aus
Do you have ANY clue as to what this discussion is about? Do you even care about healing racial divisions in SA?
@Michael Francis
The name-calling is unbecoming of someone who professes to be an educator. Shame on you! Please try to contribute to the discussions rather than engaging in personal attacks.
@Graeme
The origins of the idiom are irrelevant, it the latent effects it has on present society that counts.
@rufus
You’ve totally lot the plot. At least make an effort to think first before you write.
In Nazi Germany self-censorship was practised because people became afraid of each other, they were too afraid to speak their minds because they might be reported as enemies of the state and sent to prison or a concentration camp. Being politically correct is a form of self-censorship, stopping yourself from using idioms because they might offend overly sensitive people is a step backwards. Language is power, freedom of speech is power. These are basic human rights that as a country we fought for, so Dave Harris could you just move forward and enjoy a person who is in command of the English language and knows how to use it as a weapon and not just a rudimentary tool for everyday use.
And Dave stop eating oreo’s, those tricksy biscuits will be your downfall. and while we’re at it, no more coconuts for you either…treacherous tropical fruits will confuse the hell out of you. They may even report you for being inconsistent.
@ Dave Harris
Dear Dave. Now that is a pot calling a kettle b**** (censored). Talking about idioms, you are flogging the cat. People are taking the mickey out of you, but your switch and bait is not working with me.
I can attempt to reply to you, but (yawn) I don’t see the point, you will just whitewash it anyway, No, b****wash. Or should it be graywash? You’re like a pick-pocket at a nudist camp, mate. Take a running jump at yourself!
@Rose
I find your analogy to Germany curious.
1. Actually, it was FORCED censorship that was rampant throught Nazi Germany, I’m not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that Germans volunteered to “self-censorship”.
2. I can understand the similarities between apartheid-SA and Nazi Germany. I still fail to see how you jump from our present free society where we now enjoy many freedoms especially our freedom of speech for the FIRST time since colonization, to Nazi Germany!
3. Why can’t you see similarities to PC in the US who in reality, have made enormous strides in fostering better race relations by consciously purging this kind of racist language from their everyday literature in schools and institutions. Political correctness can be stifling at times but the benefits are immense to a diverse society!
I’d just like to reiterate, so that we’re all on the same page: I DO NOT advocate censorship. What I am asking though is for one to be a little more sensitive to other cultures when using certain language in certain contexts that could propagate negative stereotypes. For example, will you read racist nursery rhymes to your kids in the name of freedom of speech?
Indeed, language is power, so in a public forum, we have a heightened responsibility to show sensitivity to others. Is it really too much to ask to exercise a little judgement in our country where we are still raw from the scars of racism?
shows how people are quick to react – the age of blog= the age of ‘knee-jerk’ reactions.
Aren’t we forgetting the Black Beauty incident of our own history?
I think as black people we always forget that we also use black to denote mostly the bad, evil but also the supernatural and spiritual.The word “mnyama” was always there with all its uses long before the white man colonised us.
The use of the idiom is correct and can only be prosecuted by one who shoots the messenger not the message. Suppose it had been a black Thought Leader who used the idiom how will Dave Harris have responded. I hope not by calling the writer a self hating black person.
There are no racial overtones but maybe color overtones if there is anything like that.
Political-correctness is demeaning in its belly-crawling supplication to people quite unworthy of all this excessive fawning respect. It gives them an inflated opinion of their own worth. It’s dishonest.
Anger management 101 me thinks is needed for dear Jen…leave the injections, take a chill pill dear.
*Gasp!!!* You used atleast four colour-related idioms in your response article in a country called South Africa. You sinner you!!
I used to get exasperated when reading Dave Harris’ contributions. But this time I cannot help but agree with him. Once he tones down his rabid ANC-supporting arrogance, he actually make sense.