There is an Afrikaans word for faeces that is used rather less often than its more vulgar “kak“ equivalent: “drek.” I was extremely amused to read a piece issued by AfricaCheck, which is where my “drek” word comes in, because, you see, AfricaCheck should rather be called AfricaDrek, due to all the faeces emanating from the likes of the author of the piece in question, Ms Lisa Vetten. AfricaDrek is rather like the newspaper, Pravda (“Truth”), in the old Soviet Union; an organization, its name notwithstanding, not interested in publishing the truth at all, but rather dedicated to lies, obfuscation, and yes, pure, unadulterated bullshit or drek. (These days, of course, Pravda is a lot more readable in post-Soviet times.)
No piece I’ve read in 2014 has been more worthy of being described as drek than this masterpiece of desperate, attempted obfuscation by Ms Vetten. Congratulations, Ms Vetten! You can come and collect your plastic toilet seat award from me, for the most smelly turd of 2014.
Firstly, Ms Vetten describes herself as a researcher in the blurb below the article, and therefore presumably fancies herself to be some kind of academic, one given to objective analysis and the pursuit of the facts. Certainly most people would not think of an academic as one who would descend to name-calling and labelling. Yet name-calling is exactly what she cannot resist doing, describing her opponents variously as “prejudiced”, “amateur” and the “white right”.
Yes, of course. The usual suspects. Puke Watson would be proud of Ms Vetten’s stereotypes – thick-as-bricks Afrikaners, who wear khaki and down Klippies and Coke. Dumb Dutchmen.
Not quite the type of thing my professors would have approved of in a research paper, but nonetheless, at AfricaDrek, it seems to be acceptable to pretend to be an academic, but descend to name-calling when you know you’ve lost the argument, which is all the time. I was therefore tempted to use similar terms in the title to my piece, say “Feminazi causes a late-term statistical abortion”, but then I’m an amateur and not an AfricaDrek academic.
But let me, the mere dumb Dutchman, and yes, an amateur white right-winger, flush Ms Vetten’s drek down the toilet, as it were.
Firstly, uniquely among all races, the study quoted in Ms Vetten’s piece above says that many more white women are killed by others, i.e. not by their intimate partners. In fact, uniquely among races, white women were killed during the study period at a rate more than twice that of being killed by their intimate partners! Ms Vetten quotes in her column that 2.8 per 100 000 white women were killed by their intimate partners in the MRC study of 1999, but that a whopping 5.8 per 100 000 of white women were killed by “others”. So a white woman had a 32% chance of being killed by her partner, as opposed to a 68% chance of another person killing her – of being murdered by “others”.
However, this paper, also by the MRC, states that anywhere from 50% to 56% of all female homicides in South Africa generally are perpetrated by their intimate partners. Oops, now this presents somewhat of a dilemma to Ms Vetten. Why were “only” 32% of white homicide victims, as opposed to between 50% and 56% of the overall SA population, murdered by intimate partners? Why are white women so much more likely to be murdered by others?
Are white uncles, friends, cousins, parents and so on, really, seriously that much more violent than the “others” of other races, by a factor of between 30% and 40%? (68% divided by 50%.) No doubt Ms Vetten would agree with the above, and might even confidently state that indeed we whites are indeed 40% more violent towards our women. Perhaps she would hasten to add that white right-wingers are especially guilty of “other” feminine homicide.
What she doesn’t say is, however, more important than what she does write in her piece. Ms Vetten doesn’t even attempt to explain the above huge discrepancy. She wouldn’t dare to, because even an amateur like myself would understand that this would overwhelmingly support the contention that whites are being murdered more by “others”, than blacks, Indians and coloureds are. Who are these others?
Lisa Vetten doesn’t know. She has not the foggiest notion who they might be. As she herself writes:
But of course, given that we do not have racial breakdowns of perpetrators per category of women, it also possible that some white men may have killed some African women, that a few African men may have killed a small number of Indian women and that some coloured men killed white women.
Each of these permutations is possible when we are dealing only with percentages overall.
Exactly, Ms Vetten. As you yourself say, even the so-called amateur white right may be dead right, when they say that most white women are killed by black others. Again in your own words, “each of these permutations is possible”. You simply don’t know who kills white women, but if you consider how comparatively many white women are killed by others, and considering news reports and anecdotal evidence, all thinking people at least have their suspicions that it is NOT white grannies above 75 who are killing other white women.
And then, of course Ms Vetten, after having failed to explain why others kill white women at a far higher rate than what is true for other races, and having admitted to her total ignorance in the quotation above, she falls back on the tired old brain-dead excuse, which I will paraphrase as follows: “Everybody suffers from crime. White women aren’t special.” (Which makes white homicide and hate crimes committed by other races against whites OK, then?)
Another giant turd from AfricaDrek, indeed.