Racism is Alive and Kicking in South Africa

So the Forum of Black Journalists (FBJ) is all upset because the Human Rights Commission (HRC) gave a public slap on the wrist for the ejection of a number of non-black journalists from a recent briefing with Jacob Zuma.

 

Shame.

 

What, I wonder, would have been the reaction of the FBJ had a media event organized by exclusively white journalists refused entry to black reporters?

 

I’ll tell you. The FBJ would have screamed blue bloody murder and gone on to rant and rave how racism was still alive and kicking in South Africa and how every white person in the country was an apartheid recidivist intent on reviving the old days and ways.

 

The FBJ wants its cake and to eat it, too.

 

This is a great pity.

 

The FBJ – black or not – represents part of the so-called profession of journalism here and abroad. By failing, both in intent and practice, to subscribe to the stated aims of impartiality and fairness in the industry the FBJ has not only made a laughing stock of itself and pretty well destroyed its credibility, but has also deepened the contempt held by any thinking person for the profession as a whole. The FBJ has merely increased the suspicion surrounding the motives and actions of journalism and has done its own interests a great disservice.

 

Like a prima donna the FBJ has thrown a tantrum over the HRC’s remarks – for that is all the HRC did.

 

The HRC did not issue an enforceable judgement, merely an opinion. The over-reaction of the FBJ is quite remarkable.

 

Of course, the HRC should have been much harsher on the FBJ and its comments were clearly designed to avoid offending black sentiment.

 

This really shows the inherent cowardice of the HRC and its true role in human rights in South Africa. As asked above, what would have been the response of the HRC had white journalists excluded black colleagues in a similar situation?

 

The HRC would have made some very loud and indignant denunciations of the white people involved; it would have issued legal writs against the individuals and their professional body and some people would have been facing stiff fines and/or jail time.

 

Such is the two-faced chameleon nature of official human rights and spiteful race relations in South Africa today.

 

It’s all a massive fraud financed and motivated by the ANC and the government. All the pretty words and laws on equality were carefully crafted, put on the statute books and then touted around the globe as an example to the democratic donor countries in Europe and America of what good guys the ANC were in dealing with their former mortal enemies, the whites.

 

The application is, however, very different.

 

If you are a white person in South Africa, just try getting a development loan from the Landbank, a licence for a firearm, a job, or tendering for government work without first giving away 51% of your business – for nothing – to a black partner. A similar environment exists for the Indian and Coloured communities – they are not quite black enough to be included in the division of the post-apartheid spoils.

 

Oh! Yes! Racism is, indeed, alive and kicking in South Africa – it’s just that the rest of the world chooses not to see it because it would be rather embarrassing to have to admit that it has been conned and duped into a false sense of reality.

 

There is nothing wrong in seeking to redress the ills of the past – and, God knows, there were ills aplenty. But why, if not for reasons of economic greed and political revenge, change the balance in a way that so alienates 15% or more of the population that the most able, skilled and economically active of them exercise their economic attractiveness to other markets by deserting their country of birth or adoption?

 

If this programme of alienation and ethnic cleansing continues then South Africa will descend into a chaos no different from that of Zimbabwe’s following the forced eviction of thousands of white farmers in 2000.

 

The loss of skilled white artisans and professionals in recent years has already contributed significantly to the steady deterioration of much of South Africa’s infrastructure. More and more foreign expertise is having to be imported to run our major corporations and banks at much greater cost than if we had not, out of sheer spite, deported our own competence and skills.

 

Disregard the handful of aberrant white individuals who dream of the imagined glories of their past. They are not significant.

 

The vast majority of white people, whether Afrikaans or not, have subscribed wholeheartedly (some, granted, with varying degrees of wariness) to the vision of the New South Africa. Allow them the opportunity, without undue handicap, to contribute to the effort of truly uplifting the bulk of South Africa’s population into educated political and economic maturity. Allow them to expose the deceit that Africa and Africans are unable to manage their own affairs.

 

The Forum of Black Journalists, together with the ANC, have, through bitter personal experience, seen that the exclusivity and alienation of the apartheid days – to say nothing of other examples elsewhere in history – can only fail because such thinking always carries within it the seeds of its own discontent and subsequent destruction.

 

It has got to be worth trying not to repeat the mistakes and pain of the past.

 

Spearpoint.

 

 

 

Opinion: “Outrageous” Journalism

Oftentimes, Tuesday evenings here in South Africa are uplifted by a television programme that can be penetrating and thought-provoking.

That programme is “3rd Degree” and is aired on eTV – the only non-State TV channel in this country. The presenter (and, probably, producer, editor, writer and chief bottle washer) is an apparently personable and intelligent young lady who relishes in the name of Debra Patta (my apologies if I have misspelled).

Ms. Patta – I use “Ms” here for a couple of reasons; firstly, because although the lady has previously admitted on air to having a child she has not, to my knowledge, conceded the presence of a biological counterpart in her life; and, secondly, although it is merely an impression on my part (the reasons for which might become clearer later), I strongly suspect that she might strenuously object to being tagged either “Miss” or “Mrs” – has, on occasion, shown herself to be a shrewd and competent journalist. It would be surprising if she were not (at least occasionally) since she is, I understand, also the main or a principal editor of eTV’s news.

On other occasions, Ms. Patta has shown a somewhat distressing tendency to dip into the gutter of journalism, both in terms of the content, style and delivery of some of her work. Generally, I have tended to ignore those lapses since, by and large, they have been out-weighed by her better work and, I suppose, one must make some sort of allowance for the fact that she has chosen a “profession” in which exposure and subsequent success is often all too dependent upon sensationalism and an appeal to the lowest common denominators in our society rather than the highest common factors.

The topic of last Tuesday’s programme concerned a subject on which I have already made comment, (“So, ladies, you don’t like the attention?”), viz: women’s attire and possible subsequent responses.

Now, to be absolutely fair, I must here state that I did not get to see the entire programme; thanks to Eskom’s depredations I did not have power restored to my humble hovel until just after 8:15 pm, thereby missing the first few minutes of the report.

However, from what I did see and hear (and this has been backed up from other people in conversation), I was truly shocked – even horrified –  at the base levels of competence and professionalism exhibited in the programme.

To begin with, in one trailer that I saw for the programme (the previous night, if I remember correctly), Ms. Patta’s voice-over referred to the sentiment that women should not wear mini-skirts in public as an “outrageous suggestion”.

Possibly this might be construed as an acceptable “teaser” for a trailer – it certainly caught my attention.

On the other hand – well, there’s nothing like pre-judging an issue, is there?

 Unfortunately, I saw only that part of the broadcast which dealt, primarily, with the wearing of trousers or pants by women. Perhaps not quite as contentious as the issue of mini-skirts, but obviously still a matter of concern to some segments, at least, of South African society. Even so, I was aghast at what I saw and heard.

1. Even allowing for the limited period I was able to view the broadcast, I could not discern any explicit statement or contextual inclusion of anything indicating that the programme was a personal (to Ms. Patta) opinion or personal (to Ms. Patta) editorial comment;
2. The questions and comments generated by Ms. Patta were neither objective, dispassionate nor fair;
3. The questions from Ms. Patta were biased and clearly intended to cause embarrassment, defensiveness and discomfort in those (men) to whom they were directed;
4. Comments and asides made by Ms. Patta were judgemental, derisory and insulting – particularly when she made direct and overt sarcastic remarks about her male respondents’ mental ages and their alleged inability to contain their sexual drives;
5. Ms. Patta made unashamed use of her prominent public profile to intimidate her (male) interviewees;
6. Ms. Patta appears to have made no attempt to enquire of and determine the extent and weight of various cultural factors in the matter of female modesty in African and other cultures; she seems to have been interested only in propounding her own views regarding the rights or otherwise of men and women to dress and behave in public;
7. Ms. Patta used this particular 3rd Degree programme as a personal platform to espouse her personal agenda.

I really do not mind if Ms. Patta has opinions and wishes to promote them. Good luck to her.

But shame on you, Ms. Patta, for unabashedly fronting your personal views behind your editorial and public status on a national broadcasting platform in the guise of independent investigative reporting. You constantly upbraid other public personages for their alleged abuses of their profile, positions and privileges. But you want your cake and to eat it, too.

And shame on you, too, eTV for not scrutinising and vetting a broadcast that carries your banner. I am aware that you want ever-higher ratings and that both you and Ms. Patta derive huge satisfaction and glee from those, like me, who are dumb enough to feed your drives for self-aggrandizement by responding to your attempts at journalism but who, at the end of the day, matter little to you except as proof to your revenue-generating advertisers of your ability to cobble together an audience.

Both Ms. Patta and eTV have done South Africa a great disservice.

• The victims of sexually-related crimes are not likely to receive any greater sympathy or respect as a result of last Tuesday’s 3rd Degree.
• The perpetrators and potential perpetrators of sexually-related crimes might react adversely to the programme and to Ms. Patta’s apparent open hatred and ridicule of all men.
• The self-styled “profession” of journalism cannot benefit from either the content or the style of the programme – although I suspect that your counterparts at the SABC might be finding it difficult to contain their jubilation at eTV’s ineptitude.
• Such women’s rights issues as really do need attention in this country may be be set back as a result of the strident and indignant single-dimensionalism of the programme and its presenter.

Ms. Patta, you might believe in Western feminist ideas and desires; you might wish to see them transplanted on to the continent of Africa. You certainly appear to believe that men are incorrigible perverts who see women only as sex objects and will perform unspeakable acts to satisfy their basest desires and lusts. You may even be sincere.

But, do you know, I doubt that sincerity and depth of belief. We can test it, of course.

1. Show more cleavage than you do on screen – well, try, at least;
2. Forsake a bra – although your needs in that area do not seem to be too demanding;
3. Start wearing mini-skirts and jeans when you go about your job and other activities – especially in public, and especially without your minders and production teams surrounding and protecting you;
4. Leave your cameras at home or in the office;
5. Don’t do this just in South Africa. Since you seem to believe that your feminist ideology must be applied worldwide then, please, conduct this little test elsewhere in Africa, parts of America (whence such ideas were first spawned) and the Middle East (and where you can also try leaving off the headscarf).

I would, however, suggest that you also take heed of whatever local customs and sensibilities might prevail. For your own sake. Remember that there are women, too, who genuinely and sincerely believe that modesty in both genders is a hugely important part of being a complete and rounded human being – something at which was hinted in your programme the other day but which, inexplicably, you failed to pursue.

You, on the other hand, seem not only to want to tease men by advocating scanty clothing but also then to punish and ridicule them when they are pushed close to or beyond the limits of their endurance.

But, then, either side makes a great sensational story for your ambitious journalistic appetites, doesn’t it?

Spearpoint.