The case of Brandon Huntley — in terms of the divergent reactions of South Africans to his attempts to get Canadian refugee status, not so much what he did — has become one emblem of the current South African collective consciousness and subconsciousness. That emblem is the denial of racism conflated with the accusation that others are racist. The latter are people one can refer to as racist accusers … while struggling with that “dis-ease” or hatred themselves. This is Psychology 101. I project on to you what I deny in myself. Carl Jung said: “Everything that irritates us about others can lead to a better understanding of ourselves”. That’s one of his rightly famous ones, if you don’t know it. Just Google.
An example of this racist/accusatory racism conflation and its corollaries can be found in Mike Trapido’s recent blog on the horrible assault on Martin and Janet Stern. Please note how the grim story is already made a racist issue virtually from the beginning of his blog — detracting from the real issue, which is horrific violence. For example: “South Africa, after all, does not condone racism in any form”. This staggeringly naïve statement cannot be simply called denial. That’s somehow too tame. His generalising assertion is like a herd of ostriches with necks three feet deep in the hardening concrete, never mind the sand. For example, what has been rife in South Africa is xenophobia — which can be considered a form of racism, as it is a form of othering and demeaning, never mind the murderous violence done sometimes to the othered victim. Sadly, there are also plenty of “skin” racists — just from personal experience at home or abroad. And there are plenty of racist accusers, a notorious, largely unpunished recent example being Leonard Chuene and others accusing members of the international community of racism during the Caster Semenya affair while Chuene was just covering up his own wrongdoing. My recent blog, which mentioned the sorry plight Zimbabwe is in, offended some Zimbabweans as they seemed to be confused by the bleak facts (which hardly requires an expert on Southern Africa to figure out). They then obscured said facts by … drum roll and clashing cymbals … calling me a racist.
The only plea for innocence about what Traps has written, as quoted above, is that it is muddled writing. By “South Africa” what is the writer referring to? The government? And by association is he referring to the Constitution which, alas, at the end of the day, is just print on paper and not what actually goes on in the real world of SA? Or is the writer referring to the general feel and actions of “the people” at grass roots on racism? It is difficult to engage with muddled language but I will try.
Traps then makes a ridiculous racist issue of the horrific attack on Janet and Martin Stern. It is made more ridiculous by the fact that, at his time of writing, it was not known what the skin colour of the assailants were (so why bother making it racist?): “The Canadians are going to spin this over and over and form the opinion that South Africa is not the place to go if you are white.” This is pure speculation and irresponsible. To some Canadian commentators on the story, it is not even regarded as a worthwhile story. I assume Mike Trapido is implying SA is not the place to go to if you are white due to the fabricated, or genuine, racial crime stories, like Huntley’s. (As far as I know Huntley’s stories still seem to be not provable as none of the crimes against him were documented, such as in any police station or elsewhere.) But Traps should not be making idle speculations about the imagined Canadian response as a race issue. This undermines, cheapens and makes a political chess game of the valid claims of many victims, regardless of skin colour, including the Sterns. He is also making Canadians sound like ‘morons”, to use his own term for their authorities. The laziness of the insult again reminds me chillingly of Juju Malema’s childish outbursts. Oh well, they apparently belong to the same party.
Traps also says: “The fact that nowhere (correct me if I’m wrong) does it appear what race the attackers were, is not going to be noticed in the clamour to regard South Africa as a no-white zone”. The issue is not about South Africa as a no-white zone. It is not a no-white zone and to raise that as a debate is obscuring the real issue. The genuine issue — to separate the wood from the trees — is about the violence (racial or non-racial), which little is being done about. I know I am flogging a dead horse now, but Traps makes the attack on two innocent people a racist issue when it is not.
Then Traps changes direction without any warning: “Their [Canadian] government might tell them of the reality — the South African tourism board might paint a vastly different picture, but each time we send home body bags and victims of extreme violence — the damage done to South Africa’s reputation is enormous”. Agreed. But one moment Traps seems to be saying South Africa’s reputation is unjustifiably tarnished, if racial or black on white violence is asserted: “The Canadians are going to spin [the attack on the Sterns] over and over and form the opinion that South Africa is not the place to go if you are white”. But now, with regard to the Traps quotation at the beginning of this paragraph, is Traps saying South Africa’s reputation is enormously affected if it is regarded as non-racial violence? Absurd. The problem here is that Mike Trapido does not clearly think through what he is writing.
Another Trapsism: “South Africans need to think long and hard about this culture of violence and intolerance so that some day they can laugh off the claims of the Brandon Huntley’s [sic] of this world”. A confusing statement. Yes, to state the obvious, all people need to think about the culture of violence the global community lives in and which is also marketed as a form of entertainment, be it CCTV or the kind of movies Hollywood and other movie/TV industries dish out. But why should that plea to think long and hard directly lead to “laughing off” of the Huntley’s of this world, assuming Huntley’s claims are entirely unfounded? The sickening nature of violence and spurious claims are two separate issues, last time I looked at syllogistic logic or sequential reasoning. But it is the nature of those who wish to bring racism into everything to not think things through clearly, and to do that woolly thinking without a fairly thorough self-knowledge (see the Jung quotation above again).
For example, a syllogism may state:
1. Violence is horrific. (Major premise.)
2. Some people are violent. (Minor premise.)
3. Therefore some people are horrific, namely those who do violence. (Conclusion.) Common sense. Easy peasy.
But it violates syllogistic reasoning to state, for example:
1. Violence is horrific.
2. Some people make spurious claims.
3. People making spurious claims are horrific.
That is ludicrous. A spurious claim and violence are two separate issues. And I hate having to state something so dumbly obvious. And here I go again, in conclusion.That the Brandon Huntley’s or Janet and Martin Stern may or may not be a victim of racism obscures the real concerns: violence is sickening and unacceptable, and every human being is entitled to be protected from violence.
“violence is sickening and unacceptable, and every human being is entitled to be protected from violence”
Whoop de doo. And then?
Thanks Rod.
As always you dissect my columns.
i don’t read yours.
This one due to it’s heading I did. Which reinforced why I don’t.
Actually the race of the attackers is known and the issue of racism very much in people’s minds regarding crime.
Other than to say “An example of this racist/accusatory racism conflation…..” demonstrates why you need to spend EVEN more time dissecting my columns and why I’ll be spending less on yours.
Happy New Year.
The “false syllogism” thing works like this:
All murderers urinate.
John is urinating.
Therefore John is a murderer.
Hi, Rod,
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to do a critique of Traps’ article on the Sterns. Traps seems to believe that ‘saying makes it so’ and in his zeal to see SA as he wants to see it he makes the same mistakes he oft’ times chides other countries for: willful blindness to its faults and failings.
Over-identification with the under-dog in any situation leads him into denial of reality–with sometimes comic effects as when Traps’ ‘under-dog’ is a manipulative SOB who is playing victim. The past 14 years is littered with examples of corrupt or incompetent ANC leaders playing the victim card when it is they who are victimising the very people they are charged with uplifting!
In the present case, I had exactly the same reaction you had, Rod: Traps was jumping to conclusions re: the race of the attackers and how the incident would be handled in Canada. You are right: the issue is neither of those things. The issue is violence in every sphere of life and the apparent infliction of gratuitous and extreme violence in any situation. The death of individual conscience seems to be spreading like a virus in human society. Can the death of a national conscience be far behind?
SA’s Constitution was meant to provide that national conscience but, as you say, it is only print on paper if we don’t live by its principles.
Happy New Year, Rod and “Chukkie”!
Slainte,
Siobhan
Only SA tries to disguise it as “xenophobia”. The rest of the world calls it “neo-racism”. One Dutch expert in racism who came to SA said she had never heard the word before.
This is in line with the ANC “only whites are racist, blacks can’t be racist” myth.
Black South Africans need to stop being “victims”. Ask the Tamils of Sri Lanka, The Tibetans and the Chinese in Malaysia, what real racism against a minority is like.
Sorry – should read “the Tamils of Sri Lanka, the Tibetans of China, and the Chinese of Malaysia”
Say Rod,
Why are you not here in SA? Why did you escape to China and are planning to settle in New Zealand if you are so enamoured with the present-day non-racist SA? Call the kettle black…
We DO know the race of the attackers.If the attackers were white it would have been the main focus of all of the newspapers.
Hi Rod,
I am a Canadian citizen who just came back from SA a few weeks ago. While in SA (against everyone’s advice, even the police)I visited most of the places that mattered to me, including some townships such as Khaylitsha in CT, Soweto and Alexandra in Jhb. I will always treasure the good times spent in those places. Was I aware of the dangers? Of course! One would be a fool to ignore some potential dangers. But for me it was more important that I visit those places and interact with the locals as much as possible. After all aren’t they all part of the rainbow nation? Sadly to say in all occasions I was the only white person there.
I wish a lot more whites would visit those townships. Sure do take some precautions, but by all means go and spend an afternoon there. Go and enjoy some braiied meat from the ladies on the street, go to the shebeen and share a beer with the local guys. Talk to them as equals. They will answer all your questions and will ask you some more of their own. On the other hand don’t expect to see a lot of black people siting around those fancy SAfrican malls drinking an over priced Castle and interacting with the whites as equals. Unfortunately, thanks to the ANC failure to deliver on their promises ie:”A better life for all” this seems to be an impossible dream.
Ooh, rebuttal by Traps!
Bring out the popcorn. *nom nom*
The original question that the “Huntley-issue” posed was if whites are targeted by criminals because they are white…
What should happen instead of this emtional debate devoid of any facts or reason is an analysis of the facts.
We should use crime statistics to analyse if any popultion group are more victimised than another. In such an calculation we should probably exclude all domestic violence and mariticide, and then also make an adjustment for the normal distribution of crime between the rich and the poor.
If we do this we at least have measured the problem.
ian shaw – Present day South Africa is non-racist? Since when? I don’t remember the mass indoctrination to alter the social mind taking place. Racism happens all over the world. Present day Britain being a point in case.
Rod Mackenzie – Whilst I might agree with you about:
- Being a criminal lawyer does not give you more right to be right in fact my experience is that they usually argue in favour of their client, right or not.
- The latest South African hobby of seeing racism where none exists does not help race relations at all (inferred)
- We do not just have black on white crime in this country, more often than not it is black with white crime (also inferred)
But, why oh why do you find it necessary to write a blog critising another blogger? I enjoy learning more about the world and China through your eyes but have learned nothing from this blog except that you mostly disagree with Trapido. So do I, so what.
Rod,
Do you have any evidence, that the Sterns ethnicity had nothing to do with them being attacked?
Having spent a year in South Africas prisons listening to South Africas’ criminals describe in minute detail, their motivations for choosing white victims (those who do make such choices); who openly and honestly admitted that their motivations, included the ethnicity of the victims whiteness; I am constantly surprised how many journalists in South Africa appear totally and utterly clueless, about the fact that criminals do in fact consider victims ethnicity, as one of the factors in their choice of whom to victimize.
So, I ask again: Do you have any evidence, that the Sterns ethnicity had nothing to do with them being attacked?
As for your Huntley’s crimes allegedly not being documented in any police station; therefore according to you being unprovable; the DA recently documented that in 1998 alone, 668 dockets dissapeared from teh SAP. Do those crimes also now not exist as provable, because they are not documented at the police station?
Is that your criteria for a ‘provable’ crime, to be documented at a police station?
May I suggest:
Aldous Huxley: “facts do not cease to exist because they’re ignored”.
Ivan Myers Report: SAPS ON THE BRINK OF COLLAPSE
Michael Trapido I am really dissapointed. I would have expected you to be more graceful under critque.
@Maria By comparison I spent four days in Harlem in 1979 and had a good time. Nothing happened to me so what is your point. I challenge you to go there now.
In this case I had to walk from 161st street because the Black bus driver would not take me into Harlem. He did not want my death or injury on his concience. Even the old Black man sitting next to me begged me to turn go back to my hotel.
Sometimes we do do stupid things and then tell the world how brave we were. I suspect that you also had a point to prove and Like myself it worked out okay. The difference is that I would not recommend other going into Harlem even today. I suggest you do the same.
X cepting – thanks for the rejoinder. Perhaps I am biased my my ex-academic background and love for a good debate. In academic circles etc. it is normal for people to present papers and receive criticism. Presentation, rejoinder, rebuttal. I fail to see why I cannot do that with so-called “fellow bloggers”. Ismail Lagardien wrote over a year ago a piece criticising me about the lack of quality English in blogs, “We do not have to apologise for not speaking proper English” . I did not take it personally (the way Traps perhaps has) and wrote a considered reply, with some tongue-in-cheek humour: http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/rodmackenzie/2008/10/04/a-response-to-ismail-lagardien%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98we-do-not-have-to-apologise-for-not-speaking-%E2%80%9Cproper-english%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%99/to which Ismail rejoined. Ismail and I then shook hands, so to speak, exchanged emails and stay in contact from time to time. We both learned from the exchange. Traps does not wish to do that – note he has made no real attempt to engage – but just say he refuses to read my blogs. We could have had a healthy debate and both of us and readers come out of it having learned something . He chose not to, which is his prerogative, but that choice speaks volumes.
Thank you for liking my China blogs, but I don’t want to just write about China.
Hi Maria, thank you for your lovely comments about visiting township etc. If you knew my bio you will know I used to work in townships way back when and also visited townships and squatter camps to see people I know and have a beer in the sun and some braaied meat. I do admit I did not do it often. However, I am also glad that nothing happened to you. If you are still on this thread, what precautions did you take in townships etc?
Rod Mackenzie – Accepted, but as has happened on the old M&G forum such debates often becomes an intellectual/ego showdown, which may be enjoyable to the participants and those who enjoy a good brawl (nom nom indeed) but those who are mainly interested in that which has an impact on the majority of humanity and history might find slightly yawn inspiring.
The name “M&G Thoughtleader” seems to suggest that bloggers will lead the way in pointing out and debating current affairs, not other bloggers? Am I being naive here or was this the intention? So, as I said, I often do not agree with Trapido either but still read his blogs since it gives a mostly different balancing viewpoint to mine on most affairs.
Surely the whole pathetic Huntley case and sickening Stern affair is more important to discuss than Trapido? Huntley selfishly and opportunisticly used a situation to his own benefit with no thought to those whom he hurt in the process and which has done as much for race relations in this country as Malema’s weekly utterings. Good riddance. Why make so much of ex-South Africans being attacked, it happens every day to South Africans, beige-, brown-, bronze-, coffee- or chalk- coloured. The most important thing to discuss and debate about this whole affair, I think, is that crime is out of control and why Cele’s and his predecessor’s methods isn’t working to stem this. Not so?
Also, in academic circles, science circles being notable for this, professional jealousy and a fight for prestige has often been the object of these debates and it has had nothing to with finding truths or facts. I am not saying that this is your intent but whenever I see such debates I wonder.
Wow…wow,wowoooo my man…you`re too fast@The Huntley case is not about South Africa or racism but about Huntley and his escapades and deceipts and lies to get what he wants!Huntley did not qualify for entry in America so like all bloody cowards he cornered a naive,gullible and vulnerable woman,twisted her arm to marry him so that he can naturalised and he did just that and once he got his cirtizenship he dumped the poor woman and she shopped him out as no more married to her and now was liable for deportation and that`s when he spewed-out his lies to save himself from deportation.
His parents,friends and cops have no record of his crimes so that means its a lie that he ever was a victim of crime.
I would at least read the writings of an adversary in debate so as to better win the debate. The fact that Mr. Trapido very early on said, nay, admitted, that he did not read Mr. MacKenzie’s writings speaks volumes about the value he places in informed debate rather than what amounts to an assert-and-rule strategy.
Had Mr. Trapido considered and rebutted the points, I may have seen matters rather differently. However, I only have the evidence before my eyes and Mr. MacKenzie has substantiated his claims whilst Mr. Trapido has not.
I implore Mr. Trapido to reconsider his position.
Personally I’ve never understood why Rod MacKenzie writes about China. I have given up reading his posts on China, they are of no interest to me. They are not a nation or people that I admire. Even the ones I meet here in SA do not appear to be of a particularly endearing character. Anyway, each to his own, but if China is your thing why are you so concerned about what Traps writes about SA. He is here and you are there. Surely his experience of SA life at the moment is more likely to be an accurate reflection of societal norms in SA than Rod MacKenzie’s.
Hi Rod,
Yes, I am still on this thread…only far away in Toronto.
You asked me what kind of precautions did I take when I visited the townships. For starters I didn’t take ANY valuables,just enough money for the day. I also dressed simply – an African skirt, and a t-shirt ( my regular style anyways). Secondly I took the taxi(driving there would be totally foolish) and that’s where prevention starts. As soon as I got on the taxi, after greeting the other passengers, I humbly asked for their assistance. In every single occasion, they immediately responded, not only by providing me with all the necessary information, but by going a step further and offering to take me around. Besides being very gracious, they also make the most wonderful guides. In addition, they also invited me to visit their homes and their families. Although this is not a preventive measure, but an affirmative one; I think the most important thing that made my visit (to the townships) a success was that I always operated along the lines of the philosophical tenets of UBUNTU ie; ” I am because of you. Therefore, together we are” And together we were indeed! United in commonly shared experiences that neither of us will ever forget. Thank you my Dear friends for the wonderful times we shared!
I’m very glad to hear that you too have visited the townships and the settlements. Please continue to do so whenever you have the opportunity.
Maria, glad you enjoyed your holiday here.
Don’t automatically assume that white South Africans never go into townships; many do. Or that none of us talk to each other as equals. If you’d been to more fancy malls, you may have seen even more black South Africans; apartheid is no longer at issue and all races eat, drink and socialise together. Racism is! In fact: racisim is alive and well in SA, but not necessarily a trait in everyone. I think all the fuss about Huntley obscures the point that he is probably the only one we know used this excuse. Thousands more may have, but have not been exposed. I can’t belive whites here are so offended by his take; many feel the same way from time to time (at least). Perhaps we just don’t like one of our own to let the side down so publicly…
And please try to be less patronising. I bet the Sterns would have a different attitude were they left alive to tell their tale.
To Hugh Robinson,
Sorry Hugh to disappoint you, but my decision to visit those townships was never based on bravado or even less on stupidity. It was a decision I took VERY carefully, after much thought and deliberation. Pros and cons were weighted in judiciously and, if need to be reiterated, never was I dismissive of possible consequences. But I am very glad I made the right decision. As for visiting Harlem… I think I will pass; the US does absolutely nothing for me.
X cepting – I would have like to have had a lively debate on the issue raised. For me it is not about ego, Mike Trapido etc. As you pointed out debate occurs in a number of cicrles, I fail to understand why I cannot engage with another blogger. If I did it all the time that would be “yawn-worthy” and indicative of an inability to write something fresh, only an ability to parasitically leap on others blogs. However, I rarely engage with other bloggers. I have written about 160 columns/blogs for Thought Leader and about seven of those are engagements with other bloggers’ topics (as presented by them), including Ismael Lagardien, who started that lovely exchange.
Siobhan above, puts it best on the current debate. Oh, yes, naturally almost…because she agrees with me!
but she does not always, which is cool.
On the name Thought Leader? I think it is a misnomer… Opinion Leader would be better. Your thoughts? I was glad to be invited onto Thought Leader as I wished to show my writings and experiences from China and view SA from a different culture and the objectivity of observing SA from a distance. That makes me unique on TL but the readers decide how interesting/worthwhile my blogs are. I have learned a lot.
Tim, I hear what you are saying about Huntley’s questionable character. Huntley used racism and to obscure the real issues, which is what this blog is about.
If I remember correctly, most Jungian theory is pretty whacky in practice. Maybe stick to syllogisms.
I used to be a liberal — so liberal, in fact I spent a year in a South African prison, on a political crime; on behalf of truth for black Africans.
I stopped identifying myself as a liberal, and now idenitify myself as someone who searches for the truth, above ideology.
I stopped being a liberal, because I experienced so many times, liberals who used the accusation of ‘racist’, to avoid discussion of facts.
I don’t know if they were too petrified to confront the reality of the facts, were simply emotionally and intellectual cowards, or why. But whenever any discussion went anywhere they preferred not to discuss based on facts, they would not say so: they would accuse the person of being ‘racist’, and then ignore them.
They were not committed to a conversation, wherever the truth led them; they were committed to ideological feelings of superiority; so well described by: “Psychology 101. I project on to you what I deny in myself. Carl Jung said: “Everything that irritates us about others can lead to a better understanding of ourselves”.”
I often receive death threats by email, from blacks who want to exterminate whites from africa. I don’t respond with ‘you racist’; what would be the point?
I ask them to provide me with their factual evidence, for their conclusions, and whether they are interested in a conversation, wherever the facts lead us?
Are M & G white liberals interested in such a conversation?
Hi Maria – thanks for the reply and I appreciated your comments on your township experiences. It is exactly like that. Are you ex-South African or totally Canadian? I think you got the feel what it is like to be a blogger on Thought Leader! You got labelled for having bravado and being stupid by Hugh Robinson and being patronising by MLH. None of that was your intention! Similarly, my blogs are also often misread. A fascinating subject, look at the thesis headings for an MA or doctorate: “intentionality in writing, the author’s control of his/her text and misreadings becoming regarded as genuine or authentic readings!”
Hugh Robinson is usually an intelligent commentator; here I think he was genuinely concerned for your safety, as was I.
Now I am going to be labelled something ro get misread for saying that. Can’t wait.