I’ve been following this whole Jewish money, influence issue with some interest and, I’ll confess, not a little alarm.
Specifically, the fact that many respondents to Sentletse Diakanyo’s piece were absolutely unfazed by the fact that one of his key sources has a (justified) reputation as a neo-Nazi. In debates both on Thought Leader and elsewhere, I’ve noticed how those who think that Diakanyo is onto something have defended his citation of Mark Weber and the Institute for Historical Review as justifiable on the grounds that what Weber writes is true. The fact that Weber is nuttier than a jar of Black Cat Crunchy is beside the point.
So, I thought to myself, if it’s acceptable to canvass the opinion of a rabid right-winger on the subject of Jewish influence on American politics (as opposed to say, a more neutral source), then why not revisit some of the luminaries I quoted in my first book on South African insults?
Sources such as the dean of Bloemfontein, the very Reverend CC Tugman, who said in 1949: “The Bantu is not lacking in intelligence. What he lacks chiefly is ambition.” A year later, MC de Wet of the National Party offered the following insight: “They are by nature a cheerful race, if you make their souls happy they are a dancing, singing, happy race.”
Or how about Betsie Verwoerd? In 1973, she stated that she had raised her children without the help of black nannies and their “characteristic odour”. “If white children of working mothers were cared for by blacks,” she wrote. “It is natural that the white child would develop an attachment for his black ‘mother’. Even the characteristic smell which is normally repulsive to a white person will become associated in the child’s mind with the person with which he spends most of his time. Can this later repel him when he is grown-up?”
Around about the same time, a book with the intriguing title of Agter Die Mielies appeared. Its author, Bertus de Beer, explained that black and white South Africans found one another smelly. Black people likened the smell of whites to a sheep, while the smell of a black man was very much like “damp summer biltong which is unsuitable for human consumption”.
In My Traitor’s Heart, Rian Malan described the contents of a police training manual he encountered, also in the 1970s. Indians, explained the book, were an “unhygienic health menace”. Jews were sly and liable to be guilty of “fraud, embezzlement and swindling”. Portuguese and Greeks “were hot-blooded and prone to crimes of passion”. Blacks were “primitive” and needed firm but kindly guidance.
At the time, a lot of people nodded and accepted all of this as gospel. It’s easy to laugh at Betsie and Bertus. History has moved on; apartheid has been defined as a crime against humanity. Finish and klaar. But who’s to say, objectively, they were wrong? Everyone’s entitled to their opinion based on the facts to hand. Maybe Bertus conducted focus groups and canvassed the views of hundreds of people before reaching his astounding conclusions.
Of course, the fact that those sources operated within a profoundly racist worldview would tend to discount their opinions on racial characteristics now. It’s a bit like getting Eugene Terre’blanche to write an essay on the inherent criminality of blacks based on the fact that more blacks than whites are in prison in South Africa. (And, for that matter, disproportionately represented in American prisons.) You’d question his conclusions because you know they are skewed by a deeply biased frame of reference. You might read him in horrified fascination, but you’d hardly take his views seriously.
If you wouldn’t unquestioningly accept the assertions about Africans of somebody you knew to be a racist, who thought that apartheid actually made damn good sense at the time — then why would you swallow — and defend — arguments about Jews that come from the poisonous pen of somebody who believes that the Holocaust was a frightful exaggeration and not really as bad as some people like to make out?
Nicely put Sarah. Good stuff.
*goes off to shower and get that Presidential glow*
So let me see if i understood your logic…
Diakanyo wrote an inflammatory piece, you claim his main source is a right-wing nut, holocaust denialist etc-reasonable people shouldn’t quote him etc and to illustrate your point you pullout your racist epithets handbook directed at SA blacks-in a kind of, would you like it if it were done to you kind of gesture. Makes sense…
Because all black people are to blame for Sentletse’s prejudices and gaffes-why musn’t we be collectively insulted in the interests of you making your point to him!
Much as I appreciate the attempts by the editors of Thought Leader to protect the sensibilities of their readers by changing the original title of this post, I don’t think “History has moved on” actually communicates what it is about (which is how one should be careful about the bona fides of the sources one quotes to advance an argument). At least the original title would have got more reads.
I’ll be following the comments on this post with interest….
Sarah, I have been equally appalled by the ready acceptance of the opinions of people who are KNOWN to be biased. I grew up in a very right wing home, where I was taught the blacks were an inferior creation; they had no souls and were not human. Thank goodness my eyes have been opened and my mind enlightened. I would not quote anything from the persons involved in that Sect on any subject, regardless of whether I felt it was true on not. Knowing how faulty their reasoning was on the issue of race, I could not trust their judgment on anything else.
What was your original title?
Ag! Not the Jews, Anti-semitic, Sentletse rant again…Can’t we please now move on?
We all (except himself) admit that he has stuffed up.
Please tog! Move on, this is now tiring…
This blog seems to be an excuse to write some very offensive and possibly racist content about South African blacks.
Shame on you for this.Thoughtleader and the MandG can do a lot better than this surely.
Are you still living in SA?
I wonder would you say such things if you were
So what was the original title?
Do tell….what was the original title
- Thanks Lady Sarah.
Your comment on the ideological use of language in the Apartheid era is most interesting and reminds us all of where we came from… and thankfully, can put behind us, while remembering that bit of semantic history and its ideological lessons.Hopefully.
Pity about the boring, completely uninspired title for your blog. Oh, I see from your comment someone at Thought Leader came up with “History has moved on”, not you.
Whoever that was, the person does not understand the sheer import of a title for any piece of work, be it a novel, a blog, a thesis etcetera. It skews the meanings of your blog, and , quite frankly, I nearly did not read it because the title was so mundane. I wonder what the original title was.
Oh well. Keep writing. I am a loyal follower.
For those of you who are wondering about the original title, you can see it in the url, in your navigation bar.
Andre, if it makes you feel better, next time I’ll quote William Makgoba’s famous likening of white men to baboons. Or should we pretend that nobody ever said anything nasty about anyone, ever? Personally, I think the more we poke holes in ridiculous racist assumptions, the better. And we can’t do that if nobody’s ever allowed to mention them.
The original title was; “Black people smell funny says expert”
I rest my case…
Frank, Sarah is just pointing out the absurdity in Sentletse’s piece.
Doesn’t feel great does it?
On the title “Black people smell funny, says expert”. I would have changed it to “white people smell funny, says expert” or “different races smell funny, says expert”. (interesting if either of those two titles would have been accepted.)
Why change it?
Take Frank Nnete above for example. Just because Sarah, like many of us, among whom are many races, including Siphiwo with Kangaroos, were not happy with the questionable references (and ultimate point) of Sentletse’s piece on Jews (which can too easily be perceived as anti-Semetism), does not make her or any of us critical of any race or racist.
It gets back to the experience I have had too often and which I wish was wrong: If I insult or criticise a white guy that’s ok. If I insult or criticise a black guy, that’s not okay and I am a racist.
I know that is a generalisation and does not include many people, for example commentator Robert Szabo above.Yes Robert, Sarah is just pointing out the absurdity in his piece. And a number of us pointed out his general ignorance, making out many people in Obama’s top team were Jewish in his comment under Conrad Steenkamp’s rejoinder. Sentletse was very wrong and has not, as far as I know, apologised or retracted. Unacceptable.
Thanks for that Robert,
I know what Sarah was trying to do, my point was that her approach is wrong! …and yes, racist. Why point this absurdity out at all our expense?
When you say, “doesn’t feel great does it?”, you say this as if i was party to SD’s piece, as if i condoned his bogoted views. So why give me a taste of SD’s medicine!?
Interesting,would you consider adding to your list of rightwingers the likes of Mark Regev and Isaac Herzog.(We talking reputations here and should they be taken seriously)Please visit blog NEWRITINGS under “Lets inspect DIMONA” and “Israeli propaganda tried (and failed)to use MANDELA”to get proper perspective.By the way what is the real title?