as a followup to apartheid-is-alive-and-well-and-living-in-south-africa and since that post: there has been more evidence that apartheid is alive, well and evolving in south africa. yesterday many farmers and others protested against the high percentages (when compared with the national murder rates) of extremely violent crimes committed specifically against farmers. that these percentages exist is statistical fact, of course, post truth, this matters not. zizi kodwa speaking for the anc apparently announced that all lives matter, not just white skins. the anc then went on to speak out against the so very very few of these protestors (scanning twitter photos it looks like 1 in 10 000 of the protestors #BlackMonday) who displayed old apartheid flags and other notices.
changing the narrative
instead of focus on the food security of south africa and protecting white and black skinned farmers (as all races were seen at the protests) and all rural south african people, the anc chose instead to attempt to divide instead of choosing to reconcile. in my opinion, zizi kodwa said ‘non racial’ but said race, race, race all over the same announcement. it is a very simple thing to fact check: count the number of times the word ‘white’ is used or referred to in the anc statement.
the concerning point and issue is exactly that which the anc is not talking about: the murder of rural white farmers is racially motivated as these murders are not accounted for as ‘normal’ crime or murder.
in normal societies people are not murdered for no reason.
in normal societies specific groups of people are not targeted solely for the colour of their skins.
zizi kodwa is not talking about any of that. instead he is saying that black farm workers are also murdered by white farmers. yet, the facts, the actual crime statistics do not reflect what the anc is announcing. yes, there are black farm workers murdered, but not outside the statistical mean of all murders.
so, either the anc is not getting the point, or there is simply no interest in actually doing something about the murder of white skinned farmers.
this is the only reasonable takeaway from the anc statement.
zizi kodwa said nothing about the tens of thousands of praying groups of protesting farmers. he said nothing about the actual crime statistics. he said nothing about the very violent, extreme violence and murders of farmers in front of their little children and families. he said nothing about the disparity of court sentences where sentencing is now done on a racial basis (the sentences courts dish out depends on whether it is white racism or black racism – and racist crimes against blacks are now sentenced 100% harder than racist crimes on whites)
zizi kodwa uses the word: myopic in his statement. myopic also applies to the statement itself. the anc seems to think that there are no black skinned racists. that thought, in itself, is racist. as it is a simple fact that black racism exists. all people are the same, now, if one takes zizi kodwa’s statement: and use the term, ‘black majority’ and one estimates that 1 in ten white skinned people are racists, how many black racists are there?
how are black racists subverting the issues? easy, as they are invisible and not even recognised as existing, it is so very simple to change any narrative.
now just what to do about those pesky statistical facts…
oh, yes, post truth. who cares about how things really are, it is how they are spun that matters.
about the previous apartheid article, i want to add that in the case of the 8 year sentence for the black skin that killed an 8 year old white skinned girl, the black skin was first criminally charged not with murder, or murder in the second degree or even voluntary manslaughter (culpable homicide) but with reckless and negligent driving. a political party had to intercede and force the prosecution to change the charges. i realize that sometimes when someone uses examples in a blog post, it may seem that it is not well researched or the ‘facts’ represent point of view, rather than a more objective view. this is not the case here.
i also want to say that generally people agree with cyril ramaphosa, that the courts have to make an example of any racism, so that racism may be eradicated from society. but the statement that cyril ramaphosa made, is racist in itself simply because the courts do not work the way he announced. black racism carries a very light sentence, as black racists are previously disadvantaged, decades later, black racists are traumatised by the past, decades later, black racists committed their heinous racially motivated crimes because they are traumatised by events from 30 or 50 years ago. so, crimes by black racists are not sentenced fairly.
so, in fact, apartheid, by default, is evolving in south africa and in having different sentences for white racists and different sentences for black racists racism is growing. we are increasing the divide and not closing it.
when a community, any community highlights an issue that affects that community a true leader and a real representative non racial political party does not focus on race. the focus should be on the issue, not changing the narrative, not diverting or dividing.
then again, it seems there are many agendas in south africa and none of these agendas are ubuntu.