Crazy insinuation: Dylann Roof
Kiri, I am not your portrait of a white man
The Madam & Eve strip is my first great read in the Mail & Guardian, and I read the Body Language column above it. Last week, I was most concerned for the writer Kiri Rupiah (Dear Becky, I’m not your negro).
There has been a spate of semi-nude photographs in several media, not least from those thriving on self-publicity. It’s not surprising this has caused a stir. The question raised by Rupiah’s article is: Does anyone think so-called celebrities baring almost all is a position to defend?
Rupiah claims that “black women do not have the same relationship with maternity as white women do”. There is no substantiation. What does this mean? That black women think differently about motherhood than white women?
I knew many black mothers in my previous professional life and can honestly say they wanted the same for their children as the white women with whom I came into contact. Mothers want the best for their children. Or maybe I’m disqualified from having an opinion on mothers because I’m white and male?
I have a problem understanding what she means by “reproductive rights” and “reproductive justice”. These terms are bandied about with no explanation. It’s disingenuous to cite atrocities perpetrated by certain groups a long time ago as forming the opinion of those who never knew about them. Every right-thinking person agrees that forcing women (or men) to do things that they do not want to do is disgusting.
To further her argument that white women should shut up about black women, Rupiah turns to the cinema. But something “based on a true story” does not mean history is reproduced on screen. Using the examples of a madman, mass murder and white supremist, Dylann Roof, and the Klu Klux Klan as representative of present-day white men is an argument too far to reach sense.
I paraphrase her closing remarks: “Before you decide what I think, remember these words: ‘I am not your portrait of a white man’.” – Tom Morgan
There’s the right – and the far right
It is sad to see an educated person like Charles Villet of Monash University South Africa failing to distinguish between extremism and reasonable quests for sovereignty by marginalised cultures. Instead, he mistakenly demonises them as the “far right” (Donald Trump, white victimhood and the South African far right).
Nazis and fascists have been on the fringes of the political right for decades, just as communists and socialists occupy the fringes of the political left. Thus, it is insulting to attempt to brand everyone to the right of the centre as somehow linked to the totalitarian “far right”. Conservatives, courteously and correctly, do not associate left-of-centre liberals with the totalitarian left.
The term “white victimhood” is one the left has manufactured. It distorts and disparages what is as old as history itself: defence of cultural and sovereign identity. Conflict in history has always resulted from attempts to impose imperialism and colonisation.
The growing opposition in Europe to the deluge of migrants is valid and reasonable, particularly if those migrants have no intention of assimilating to the culture of the countries where they seek refuge. No self-respecting people and culture voluntarily surrenders its heritage to aliens. The resurgence of national sovereignty in Eastern Europe since the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics testifies to the resilience of cultural homogeneity.
For the white farming community in South Africa (35 000 people), the ongoing murders of farmers are more than just “problematic”, as Villet says. More than 1 600 white farmers have been murdered since 1990 – a figure without parallel in the modern, civilised world. Given the incendiary rhetoric of Economic Freedom Fighters’ Julius Malema, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela and the late controversial ANC leader Peter Mokaba in urging the killing of white farmers, reference to “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” is not inappropriate.
If Villet finds this “hyperbole”, he should be wary of attempting to consign all those willing to defend culture and heritage as “far right”. – Duncan du Bois, Durban
FSB does not regulate forex trading
The Financial Services Board (FSB) would like to clarify its jurisdiction and mandate with regard to the regulation of South African banks (Major banks investigation implicates FSB). The FSB is the regulator of the non-banking financial services industry. This covers retirement funds, short- and long-term insurance companies, funeral insurance schemes, collective investment schemes, the stock market, financial advisors and brokers.
Banks are registered by the FSB as financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act No 37 of 2002 insofar as they give advice or render intermediary services on a financial product. A financial product would include investment instruments based on a foreign currency, including foreign currency deposits.
Banks are not regulated by the FSB for transactional banking, which includes forex trading.
The South African Reserve Bank is responsible for the prudential supervision of banks. This means the Reserve Bank seeks to achieve and maintain price stability in the interest of balanced and sustainable economic growth in South Africa. The FSB works with the Reserve Bank where it has jurisdiction over investment instruments and deposits.
As Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan emphasised in his budget speech, the envisaged Twin Peaks model of financial regulation will see the creation of a dedicated market conduct regulator, which will have among its functions the regulation of the conduct of banks. The Financial Sector Regulation Bill, the legal framework for the creation of this entity, is progressing through the parliamentary process and is expected to become law in the near future. – Tembisa Marele, FSB communications