Genocide as social justice

The Red October protest on 10 October 2013

Recent media coverage of the Red October march resulted in extensive critique where media efforts to classify it as nonsense failed. The reason it failed is because farm murder statistics have not been disputed by any party.

So-called expert commentators denounced the issue as white on black racism, despite the fact that more than 50 000 blacks die of external causes on a yearly basis. The few white people complaining about the issue therefore did their black brothers a huge favor.

However, some efforts are underway to “solve” the crime statistics problem once and for all. This endeavour is from the Institute for Security Studies, partially sponsored by foreign governments with the aim of removing this little ANC eye-sore.

The solution sought was to find a way to equate genocide with justice.

The outlandish suggestion that two mutually exclusive ideas, genocide and justice, are equal is not an unknown phenomenon. According to the Mail and Guardian thought-leader Bert Olivier, where he blogged his thoughts on “Lacan’s theory of discourse”, he (Lacan) described four types of discourse i.e. “Master” (I am your father), “University” (supporting the Master), “Hysteric” (True Scientist) and the “Analyst” (Mediator).

These discourses are complimented by a pseudo-discourse called “Capitalist” discourse where the clever Capitalist assumes the role of Hysteric (True Science) while surreptitiously advancing the Master’s discourse.

“This is why Lacan calls it a “clever discourse” — it masquerades as the Hysteric’s discourse, but secretly advances the interests of the Capitalist Master.”

This theory allows one to analyze what people say and to determine how truthful they are. For example, if one were to evaluate Jacob Zuma’s discourse it would appear he is an Analyst (of all things) as quoted:

“The “discourse of the analyst” is the most difficult to understand, because it is a mediating discourse, according to which social relations are structured by revealing to subjects their true, but usually hidden, “desire”, which they can only pursue […] by “producing” a master’s discourse of sorts, that is, one which enables them temporary access to the means for pursuing this desire of theirs.”

This seems to indicate that Zuma attempts to “produce” a Master’s discourse of sorts in order to pursue his own desires. That the ANC accepts this “production”, shows that they “want to” believe and then participate in the show.

Based on the above argument (of producing false discourse) one can also address the niggly matter of “genocide equals social justice”. According to the publication “SA Crime Quarterly No 45” of the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), Sarah Henkeman wrote the article “Pale Face/Pointy Face: SA Criminology in denial”.

She provides a “University” discourse essentially following the Master (ANC), which in general would be seen as “Neoliberal” by an audience.  Her motivation for the article is: “The emphasis of this paper is on social justice” meaning that the inability of South African criminologists to understand crime, is due to lack of understanding social justice. It follows then that if social justice was understood, crime would not have been a problem. This criminological approach is then identified by Henkeman as “counter-colonial”.

She states as follows: “Neoliberal narratives and demarcations of the ‘miracle/rainbow nation’ obscure the fact that South Africa is not a ‘post-conflict’ society. By removing the term ‘post-apartheid’ […], the focus of analysis shifts to the interaction of trans-historic cultural, structural, psychological and physical violence generated during colonialism-apartheid-market democracy. This shift of focus has the potential to deal with the ‘crisis of understanding’ and the obsession with control ascribed to SA criminologists.”

The thing with “social justice” is that it is a colonial construct. According to Wikipedia social justice is described as “justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is applied to and among the various social classes of a society.”

Therefore, using it in this context implies that the Master wants to use a meaning that applies to him in one (African) context, but to the liberal “audience” another meaning is “hidden” where the “University” discourse amplifies it as motivation for “colonialists” or neoliberals to follow (the Master).

Recent South African, but also African history in general, have shown that murder-by-crowd is socially just where it was for example used to stone women to death or kill perpetrators of some tribally unacceptable crime.

During the apartheid years many black people for example were killed using the infamous Winnie Mandela necklace method. Those murders were executed with utter impunity. The fact that a war raged for 15 years must surely be indicative of the fact that with the ensuing peace declaration literally hundreds of thousands of people active in the conflict in some form or fashion returned home to demand the long-sought fruits of their labour.

The fact that Henkeman refuses to accept that there is really a post-conflict society, points to the simple fact that she as University discourse agent is hiding the secret desires of her Master – which is apparently to argue that no murders took place because all deaths were justifiable in restoring social justice.

By the same token it is said that there is no genocide, because it is socially just to kill white farmers and their families.