There is a poster on the London Underground which depicts three brains. Two of them are the same size. One of them is labelled “white”, the other “black”. The third brain is substantially smaller than the other two. It is labelled “racist”.
We have had cause to wonder in recent weeks whether a number of our public figures have suffered a dimunition of their cranial cavities.
From the usually admirable Johnny de Lange, African National Congress chair of Parliament’s justice committee, to Graham McIntosh, the feisty Democratic Party MP, to Dumisane Makhaye, the normally coherent ANC MEC for housing in KwaZulu-Natal, we have heard utterances of bewildering idiocy.
First we had De Lange calling Mike Robertson, the respected editor of the Sunday Times, a “black in drag”. This was presumably because, even though a paint salesman would have difficulty in classifying Robertson as anything other than a whiter shade of pale, the apartheid government saw fit to classify him “coloured”. Last week we had McIntosh calling Minster of Correctional Services Ben Skosana “a boy” in the course of a debate in the National Assembly. As we all know, McIntosh included, “boy” is a disempowering term of insulting racial condescension when applied to a black adult male. And this week we heard Makhaye offering ill-formed racist drivel as “humour” to the provincial assembly in Pietermaritzburg.
Add to this the idiotic decision of the National Olympic Committee of South Africa to disqualify our national men’s hockey team from the forthcoming Sydney Olympics because, in their opinion, the team (with reportedly seven players from previously disadvantaged backgrounds) is too white. Mix in the hearings of the Human Rights Commission panel on the media, the charges of racism voiced there and the arguments that have resulted. And what do we have?
We have a country in which race and racism, actual or imagined, continue to play a significant role. We have a country seemingly floundering around for a way to address issues of race and racism constructively.
The old refrains about non-racialism have stuttered into confusion. One side argues non-racialism must mean creating equality of opportunity. The other side suggests non-racialism must mean achieving equality of outcomes- in other words, that, in South Africa, non-racialism must paradoxically mean that whites must be discriminated against in order to achieve black advancement. And, in the midst of this confusion, we have a number of our public representatives behaving like buffoons, while those equipped to behave otherwise keep quiet.
It is now time for an open and clear debate on race, conducted in terms we can all understand and in media to which we all have access. We need to decide frankly among ourselves whether a person’s race should matter at all; if yes, on which issues; if yes, for how long should race be a factor.
The aim of such a national discussion should be to develop a strategy for dealing with race whose focus is not backward- looking, inquisitional or punitive. Instead, in the words of Wilmot James, dean of humanities at the University of Cape Town, we need to develop “a forward-looking effort to promote diversity and pro- actively search for all talent, black and white”.
In the course of doing so, we will need to be wary of those who hanker after the trappings of the old white-supremacist status quo. Likewise, we will have to be just as vigilant in spotting those for whom a charge of racism against a white counterpart is merely a disingenuous device to get something to which the complainant believes he or she is entitled – what James calls “self-serving anti-racism”.
There is a particular role in this process for President Thabo Mbeki and the ANC – in whose name much of the struggle for the current dispensation was waged. We need leadership on this issue – not the kind that dictates, but the kind that listens and debates.
Ban killer dogs
The sickening death of Janet Mngadi this week after her mutilation by two pit bulls makes it imperative that a South African ban on these living weapons – and other breeds that fall into the same category – is long overdue.
Predictably, moves towards such a ban will raise loud cries of protest from those who consider it their right to own such animals as a defence against criminals.
But these arguments are no more valid than those who would plead for automatic weapons, bazookas or tanks in domestic armouries.
There are many other breeds which make strong and controllable guard dogs and many better choices available to fill the role of guardian and companion in the home than those breeds which are notorious for excessive and random violence.
The perpetual surprise of the owners of these menaces to society after the sudden excesses of their pets is inexcusable. No one can claim ignorance of the potential for their ownership to turn into tragedy.
Those who choose to own them, knowing what they are capable of, are swapping civic responsibility for a bloody-minded “I’ll get them before they get me” attitude which cannot be tolerated.
Particularly sickening in the Mngadi case was the news that the dog’s owners had to be sedated – not for distress over the death and bereavement caused by their actions, but because they were upset that their “pets” had been destroyed.
The danger presented by such breeds has been recognised overseas. In Britain, for example, certain “dangerous dog” breeds are strictly controlled. Such dogs, which include Rottweilers and pit bulls, cannot be imported and must be castrated. If taken on to the streets they must be muzzled and on a leash.
Of course such laws would not have saved Janet Mngadi, who died after lawfully entering her employer’s premises. The government must act to protect people such as her against owners who have failed to take responsibility for the danger that their animals pose to other human beings.