Whinge-free whiteness
Does Samantha Vice realise how much damage she is doing with her divisive, prescriptive nonsense? She believes that she has hit “a nerve” because she is uncovering some great truth, but she has not considered that what she says is so detestable people write back to her in anger, (“Why my opinions on whiteness touched a nerve“, September 2).
Aside from an overall feeling of disgust, I have two huge issues with her antagonistic rhetoric. First, she is suggesting a new form of apartheid, in which a racial group in South Africa must be submissive and grateful that our new black overlords don’t drive us into the sea for our crimes.
The blasé way she suggests such racism and subjugation is astounding. Is this really what she wants? Is there a date she has in mind when we will have been well-behaved for long enough that she will allow us to have a say in our own country again? Ten years? Twenty years?
The other glaring flaw is her assumption that an ANC government will be responsible in the face of an even weaker opposition and even less accountability than it now enjoys. Has the ANC given Vice some reason to believe it would be?
I accept white people being told they still hold too much power or land, or that some specific legacy of apartheid is stifling black development. I would love to hear opinions and ideas on how to redress this imbalance. But I am dumbfounded by a woman who thinks what this country needs right now, in the present climate, is for whites to feel bad and for blacks to be indignant. You have had your 15 minutes, Professor Vice, now please grow up and join the real world. — Mark Strijdom
Academic Samantha Vice has caused a storm of controversy with her thoughts on white shame in South Africa. Read the reactions on our special report.
Vice’s deeply disturbing article demonstrates how far we still have to go before we can grapple with the real problems facing our country. Surely I am not alone in seeing Vice’s recommendation — basically to “back off and let the natives be” — as inherently racist? We are approaching 20 years of democracy and the fact that we remain bogged down in this type of ultimately destructive debate is cause for despondency.
As the state’s main source of revenue, white taxpayers are the most important financial contributor to upliftment policies. If Desmond Tutu wishes to call that a “white-guilt tax”, he is most welcome.
Misguided attempts to tease out white guilt, alongside an ever-increasing black self-righteousness, make for an uncomfortable mix – with truth as first casualty. In this light, Eusebius McKaiser’s more even-handed view (“Challenge your sense of superiority“, September 2) is encouraging. I could give him a hug. — Leon Groenveld, Honeydew
I fail to see what all the fuss is about. Vice simply states the obvious. Academics usually do so behind veils of obfuscatory terminology, so Vice did something unusual: she spoke plainly in the unlikely space of the academic journal. This is why her thoughts found their way into public discourse, where they continue to generate an uproar.
I concur with most of what she says, although McKaiser’s contention that “reflective self-awareness is preferable to a vow of silence” carries considerable weight. Also, the following statement warrants challenge: “however attached whites are to this country … and however much we care for its success, we shouldn’t feel completely comfortable”.
I never felt “completely comfortable” back then, and I remain uncomfortable. My discomfort has rankled so long in me that I’ve begun to mistake it for my heartbeat.
I am all too uncomfortably aware that my being did not emerge “ex nihilo”. From my netherworld, I lean towards shades of anarchism, or towards a dystopian idealism sans name. Yet, in spite of such wranglings in my (white) soul, the idea of “packing for Perth” is anathema to me. It’s far too interesting being here and the liveliness of this debate provides ample proof for the continuation of a curious faith in “us”. — Paul Mason, Grahamstown
Seldom have I come across more asinine drivel than Vice’s article advocating that whites should condemn themselves to lives of self-hatred because they are white and because apartheid was imposed by whites.
Whites’ mere presence in this country, she holds, is “destructive” and we should adopt a stance of silent contrition. In particular, we must avoid “criticism of the government or black politicians” and not complain about “corruption” and other scandals.
Presumably she is happy that politicians and public servants, aided and abetted by private-sector criminals, steal untold billions from the public purse — billions that should be used to uplift the poor. All whites, she postulates, are guilty by involuntary membership of the racial group that imposed apartheid.
Pursuing her logic, a white journalist who discovers corruption by a black politician should not publish it. If a black journalist uncovers corruption by a black politician, would that publication have Vice’s approval? — Stephen Mulholland
As a white person who supported the anti-apartheid campaign overseas and as a new citizen of South Africa, I was disturbed by the “whiteness” debate. How dare these people lump me with the wishy-washy navel-gazing patheticos! The biggest problem with white South Africans and other racial groups is the “laager” mentality.
Seeing everything in terms of race means that most people will never grow into citizens of post-1994 South Africa. This philosophising about whiteness may strike a chord with some, but it’s odd that after 17 years of democracy Vice et al are still trying to show they have atoned for a political system they did not set up.
I have more empathy with McKaiser. At least he shows some backbone and a social conscience as well as practicality. Sadly, his argument is unrealistic. Successive governments have blocked the dialogue he proposes. Whites are kept out of the tender process. Thousands of white local and central government workers were retrenched in the 1990s and jobs left unfilled because white people were excluded. I visited several government offices where no one did essential work because the instruction was that no white people be employed.
Mark Heywood (“Looking into the souls of white folk“, September 2) is wrapped up in Jo’burg and believes outsiders think Jo’burg odd. Yet what he writes about the city is true of cities in many countries. I have visited Douala in Cameroon, Mindelo in Cape Verde, Salvador and Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, Buenos Aires in Argentina and several others, and found exactly what Heywood claims is so odd. Migration to the suburbs as people’s economic status improves is not only a South African phenomenon.
The need to move on is reaching crisis point. Hopefully white South Africans will not continue down Vice’s road of sackcloth and ashes. — Tom Morgan
Each human being is first an individual, not a member of a group. The “collective identity”, “race”, “colour” or “tribe” are the rags some wear for protection. The trashing of such rags is long overdue.
The chief culprits of this retrograde thinking are, of course, racist Afrikaner nationalists, who at last have been swept aside. But now we have the pontifications of a raving archbishop, the vicious twists of guilt knives wielded by a charming Rhodes academic, and then Eusebius McKaiser! All praise to him for still allowing me to write letters to the M&G. I cannot find it in myself to cringe with shame and guilt, Professor Vice. Please forgive me and please, do enjoy wallowing in it yourself. — Oliver Price, Cape Town
Only option is to put recrimination behind us
Something extraordinary struck me while listening to chief justice-nominee Mogoeng Mogoeng’s apologia to the Judicial Service Commission: the tight parallels between his defence of his role in the Bophuthatswana homeland “justice” system and a white South African who, knowing the unfair advantage he had, had found it objectionable.
Consider, for example, someone who realised in high school that the system was wrong, but nonetheless benefited from access to a superior education and who, in spite of knowing that the army was not defending the country but upholding injustice, accepted conscription nonetheless.
How does this differ morally from Mogoeng’s accepting money from a homeland administration to study law and subsequently taking up a job as a prosecutor?
Mogoeng argued that he had no other option, but of course he did. He could have elected to remain poor, he could have refused to work as a prosecutor after graduating, or he could have skipped the country. The white person also had choices of this kind: he could have gone to jail rather than go the army, or he could have skipped the country.
Which of the two is more morally culpable? Should we really be standing in judgment of our fellow citizens in this way, when we have been through a reconciliation process that was meant to end this and we have the supreme example of Madiba, who walked out of jail and put all that behind him?
If, indeed, we were to fairly assess everyone’s role in the apartheid years, we would have to end the hypocrisy of treating a policeman who worked for the security police as “historically disadvantaged” purely on the basis of race. We would also have to stop treating academics who worked at apartheid universities as “disadvantaged” without prior screening of their actual role: were they using their campus to fight oppression, as many did, or merely milking a state that was happy to have tame blacks aiding and abetting the provision of inferior education?
The real issue that we face today is how to move beyond all this.
If, indeed, we were to fairly assess everyone’s role in the apartheid years, we would be mired in recrimination for decades.
The whole purpose of a revolution is to move on, yet 17 years on, the shadow of apartheid still hangs over everything. Until we achieve a truly fair society with opportunity for all, moving on is not going to happen. And, for that, the people currently running the country need to take responsibility and not take refuge in blaming the past. — Philip Machanick, Grahamstown
ANC is imploding
Most people, including some in the ANC, make the mistake of thinking only President Jacob Zuma stands to lose big from the stupid behaviour of Julius Malema and his flag-burning brigade. But what the ANC stands to lose in public confidence and support will never be recovered in our lifetime, making the ANC the biggest loser by far.
From the look of things, there is impatience within the ANC ranks because some members keep smuggling the succession debate in through the back door. It seems some leaders believe their time to take over the reins has arrived and they cannot be hindered by the old guard any longer.
The credibility of the ANC is at stake. According to its founding documents, the ANC was not formed for its own sake, but to liberate South Africans from political and economic oppression. It is therefore disappointing that its members are forsaking their political mandate to engage in worthless squabbles. The public is watching with disbelief at the horror unfolding in front of us, seeing revolutionaries at each other’s throats, pushing, shoving, kicking and wrestling one another to the ground for tenders and state resources, instead of mapping the route to economic freedom.
The principles and values of the ANC are too noble to be traded in for self-indulgence and the public is not naive enough to pin its hopes on flag-burning brigades. It’s revolting enough to look at Julius Malema’s extravagant lifestyle. — Tshepo Manyane, Old Kraaipan, North West
Enough of the lift
At the foot of Mandy de Waal’s Body Language column on atheists, sexism and men making (very polite) passes at women in elevators (“Misogyny, with or without God” September 2), we are offered the chance to “read a longer version of this article at mg.co.za/elevatorgate”. Well, I nearly choked on my cornflakes. With incredulous laughter. Why on earth would I want to read more of this pointless discussion of some distant stormlet in a very small teacup? — Miles Seward, Cape Town