Little America at the tip of Africa

In this interview, two South African authors have a conversation about important issues affecting the country, the USA and society generally. They both grew up in and around Johannesburg and, thanks to the internet, discovered each other’s work a few years ago. Ilana Mercer lives in Washington State, in the north-western corner of America.

ILANA MERCER: There’s an elephant in the courtroom in which Oscar Pistorius is being tried for the murder of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. It is the unidirectional, black-on-black and black-on-white violent crime in South Africa. The fear of being butchered was likely behind the blade runner’s irrational, irresponsible actions. I had hoped that Pistorius would speak up. For all his privilege, Pistorius knows the rapacity and invincibility of the criminal class in his country. Like every other Afrikaner, he knew in his gut what infiltrating gangs would do to a legless Boer. The world is praising the proceedings in that court. However, “making sport of a caged animal that has confessed” is how a South African reader described this courtroom Colosseum. What do you think?

DAN ROODT: I largely agree with that. One of the columnists on our Praag.org site described the trial as a “canned hunt and a legal travesty.” Most people watching it probably do not know that only 8 percent of murder cases in South Africa result in a conviction, so killers have a 92 percent chance of literally getting away with murder! South Africa is both the murder and especially the rape capital of the world. Usually the statistics are massaged in such a way that only murder proper, called “first-degree murder” in the United States, is included in the absolute number of murders. But if one also counts other homicides with a lesser culpability, we are the world champions, even above India’s 43,000 homicides. But, of course, India has over 1 billion people, whereas we have just over 50 million. Even for first-degree murder, we have more of those per year (16,000) than the U.S. (14,000), which has six times our population.

Regarding the court procedures, Pistorius is spending a lot of money on his legal team, and the state is using an experienced Afrikaner prosecutor, Gerrie Nel. However, there has been large-scale affirmative action applied to the appointment of judges, so that many of them lack the knowledge of the law and the experience to do their job properly. In many cases, black offenders, especially, get off very lightly and in practice do not serve more than 10 years for first-degree murder.

The government is also applying pressure on lawyers to apply affirmative action in their own ranks as most of the top-level senior lawyers, or advocates, as we call them, are still white. They are preferred by the big-spending corporate clients in civil cases, especially. A lawyer friend of mine recently told me of one tedious corporate court case in Pretoria that has lasted 10 years and consumed $5 million in legal fees, also swallowing up her whole life. Ironically, even the president, Jacob Zuma – who has had more than 500 charges of corruption against him and was also accused of rape in December 2005 – used white Afrikaner lawyers to get him off, using their technical knowledge of the law and court procedures.

There is also rampant corruption in the criminal justice system, with policemen and petty court officials being bribed to make documents and evidence disappear, so the kind of televised court-room soap opera of the Pistorius trial is not at all representative of the vicissitudes of the average trial.

Unlike in the U.S., South Africa does not collect crime statistics broken down by race anymore, but we know that the vast majority of prison inmates serving time for violent crime are black. White offenders – which include white-collar crimes like fraud or insider trading – only constitute 1.8 percent of the prison population, while whites make up under 10 percent of the total population. A recent reliable survey showed that whites are disproportionately victims of house robberies, constituting about 50 percent of the victims, while the perpetrators are almost invariably black.

The image of South African blacks disseminated by the global media is of a population of kindhearted, forgiving people like Mandela, whereas the reality demonstrates something entirely different. There is something inexplicably sadistic about murders and assaults by black perpetrators on their white victims in South Africa, which often include lengthy and dehumanizing torture sessions, mutilation of bodies, sexual violence, and so on. Often the victims are children, including toddlers and babies. Every week we read about farm murders in the press where the victims are normally elderly white farmers, regularly ambushed on a Sunday morning when they return from church attendance.

Order lIana Mercer’s brilliant polemical work, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa”

MERCER: The South African Constitution, naturally, sanctions the prosecution of individuals based on the things they say. Conversely, Americans are supposed to enjoy a constitutional right to speak freely. The freedom gap is, however, narrowing. The establishment – politicians, journalists, jurists, educators and academics; “conservatives” as much as liberals – trip over one another in a collectivist, concerted effort to ruin an “offender.” The latest individual to be crucified for committing America’s original sin – harboring impure racial thoughts – is Donald Sterling. You’ve written that, while “few people in the U.S. have had any direct experience of racism, they nevertheless discern racism in other people’s body language, in their use of euphemisms or in being patronized by others.” Explain how this “metaphysical racism” now works as an “engine of history.”

ROODT: Unfortunately, ever since the 1960s, South Africa has been influenced by America in a very bad way. Instead of looking to the U.S. for lessons in self-reliance, the right to self-defense, or how to finance start-up tech companies, we have simply imported your liberal, pathological political correctness. That includes the sensitivity around language and terms with a racial connotation. I cannot begin to tell you how many words there are in South Africa to describe people of various races including, of course, pejorative terms. I seem to recall that my generation was very sensitive to using some of those words, and there was a famous case in 1978 when the old government’s censors banned a satirical novel entitled “Magersfontein o Magersfontein!” for containing a piece of dialogue in which the word “kaffir” was used in an ironic way. This is our equivalent to what you call the “N-word” in the U.S. In print these days, most people here also refer to the “K-word,” as there is just such a taboo against using it. However, if you go to any school playground or university campus in South Africa, young whites are using it as a way of rebelling against the system. How long this will last, I do not know, because the government and mainstream, politically correct society are clamping down on it and even giving people suspended prison sentences for a first offense after being found guilty of using the “K-word.”

So in South Africa you can torture an elderly white lady and maybe get away with it, but you will be prosecuted for speech crime for using racial epithets. I would not be surprised if all telephone conversations will be monitored, NSA-style, at some point in the future to ensnare those who use so-called racist language.

When it comes to “metaphysical racism,” that is at a far more subtle level. Someone who first alerted me to this was the documentary filmmaker Craig Bodeker from Denver, Colorado, with his piece “A Conversation About Race.” Many people in the film say that “racism is everywhere,” surrounding us like sin or some invisible element. Also, in “A Conversation About Race,” I learned that some American blacks think that a compliment from a white could be a sign of racism. So either an insult or a compliment could be construed as racism.

In South Africa, some of the liberal commentators such as Steven Friedman who writes in the Johannesburg Business Day claim that blacks were damaged by apartheid and therefore cannot be expected to perform at the same level as whites. In the U.S., this claim is made about slavery, that the insidious effects of slavery are still present, which would explain the academic achievement gap, but also differences in wealth and income. Colonialism also comes into it, as far as other African countries are concerned. The fact that Africa has remained underdeveloped for so long is almost always blamed on colonialism, notwithstanding that it was colonialism that had introduced Africa to the wheel and to writing, not to forget science and technology!

Whereas about a decade ago, the British magazine The Economist had described Africa as “the hopeless continent,” it now sees Africa as a fast-growing continent, not very different from countries like China, Hong Kong or South Korea. Even Goldman Sachs thinks that Africa will soon be a developed continent competing on an even keel with Europe, North America or Asia.

The flipside of the new optimism about Africa, including South Africa, is that every failure or missed growth target is somehow backwardly rationalized in terms of racism, colonialism and apartheid. In short, “metaphysical racism.” So even when it comes to technology, the economy and education, there is always a cloud of racism somewhere that the developed world has to address by offering aid money or some form of expiatory confession from Western leaders.

I always wonder: If Africa is now standing on its own two feet and growing so fast, why do so many countries still need development aid? Why do South African blacks still need affirmative action, including racial quotas in sports?

ILANA MERCER: The dominant-party state that is South Africa is steeped not in an African creed but in an American one. One of your most astute observations has been that post-apartheid South Africa is very much a creature of the Anglosphere. In the U.S., centrally planned and enforced multiculturalism is twinned with open borders for Third World peoples. How has South Africa fallen in line?

DAN ROODT: Many people see South Africa as an experiment in multiculturalism and open borders. Almost robotically, we’ve adopted most of the American liberal precepts in a very naïve, knee-jerk fashion. Some people are even urging that we abolish borders completely, to allow any of the billion Africans north of our country to come and settle in South Africa, much like your government is doing vis-à-vis Central American dependents. However, our experience of the massive illegal immigration we have had since 1994 is that it increases intolerance, especially among the poor and the unemployed. Locals regularly kill foreigners, and we have had so-called xenophobic riots.

In some towns close to the border, the foreign population is about 80 percent. Foreigners have access to public health-care facilities, so many are “obstetrical tourists” who come here to have babies – “anchor babies,” as you call them in the U.S. Generally speaking, state hospitals are getting worse and worse, also as a result of being overburdened with foreign Africans.

Recently, there was a court decision that foreign children that have been orphaned or separated from their parents, for example in the war-torn Democratic Republic of the Congo, also qualify for free public education in South Africa. After Lawyers for Human Rights had sued for the privilege, the government did not oppose their petition to the court.

Open borders will lead to even more ethnic strife, and we may even import some of Africa’s civil wars as the belligerents pursue their combat in South Africa. In your country, it’s gang warfare.

MERCER: Under the Afrikaners, South Africa was a European-style nation-state – Christian and biracial, in the main. Under Mandela’s African National Congress, it has adopted multiculturalism, which subsumes an “American radicalism that aims at abolishing the nation-state and replacing it with a kind of global corporatism and welfarism,” to quote your work. South Africa is now an “Afro-Saxon” nation. Explain, please.

ROODT: Yes, I think those remarks of mine are borne out by what is happening in Europe right now. There is some kind of revival of the Western spirit going on in places like France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Austria and Hungary. It is something of a truism that Afrikaner nationalism in the 20th century was based on European-style ethnic nationalism. If you look at it more objectively and free of the moral hysteria and distorted accounts, apartheid or separate development was an attempt to impart European-style ethnic nationalism to South Africa’s African tribes. To some extent, it worked, and it still has an effect to this day. For example, there has been a resurgence of Zulu nationalism in South Africa, and to some extent the ANC under Jacob Zuma has become a vehicle for Zulu aspirations and advancement. With the difference that it is no longer limited to the old homeland of Kwazulu. The whole of South Africa has now become “one big Bantustan,” as the liberal commentator R.W. Johnson has characterized it.

But in other respects, South Africa has become a colony of the USA, culturally speaking. Blacks identify with African-American culture. You hear American rap music wafting from their cars, and they have adopted the same kind of victim’s discourse that you find in the USA. There is actually a Kenyan professor who teaches in the USA., as far as I know, Ali Mazrui, who coined the term, “Afro-Saxon” for the English-speaking blacks in Africa, the USA, the Caribbean, in Britain, and so on. In fact, they outnumber the original English-speaking population of England! The black elite in South Africa identifies with this global Afro-Saxon culture, and they see themselves as being an important part of it, using South Africa’s wealth and developed infrastructure to advance the Afro-Saxon cause.

Talking about the welfare state, one of the worst fears of the old apartheid theorists was that ultimately the productive, developed part of the economy would have to subsidize the unproductive, impoverished, undeveloped part, dragging both down into an equally distributed poverty. This is more or less what is happening in South Africa now as we have a welfare state for 50 million people, supported by only 2 million real taxpayers. The funny thing is that multiculturalism and affirmative action actually disguise this process completely, so that you can no longer really tell who the producers are and who the consumers of wealth are.

In the same way, knowledge and expertise also end up being distributed in such a way that you no longer know who really has it: Is it the person who does the job, or his secretary or assistant or deputy or whoever? The other day I heard that an ex-taxi driver was appointed to a top job in our central bank, but he is barely able to write an email and knows nothing about banking. Yet he has some outside white mentor or adviser who actually helps him do his job and is also his business associate. So everybody tries to exploit this made-in-America spoils system.

Unfortunately, the USA seems to be in imperial mode, and so it wants to export its multicultural model everywhere, including to Europe where there are still real nation-states in which people speak the same language, have a common history and identity and have not been transformed by immigration. You only have to come to South Africa to see the American model in its most extreme form, where race and political correctness dominate everything.

When it comes to issues of race and ethnicity, we have also imported the sensitivity around language and ideas that pertain in the USA. Once I actually quoted a black columnist complaining about the low scores in math recorded in black schools in Soweto. The next thing I was denounced as a racist. Even if you just try to defend your language and culture, or the right of free association, that is also seen as racist. Too much criticism of government corruption or affirmative action is likewise deemed racist.

Welcome to Little America at the tip of Africa.

No hatred in the old South Africa

danr2

by Dan Roodt

[followbutton username=’danroodt’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Dan Roodt’s Facebook page

Steven Friedman’s protestations about “apartheid denial” notwithstanding, it is true that many people are reassessing South Africa’s past in the light of the present, which is in various ways more brutal, more venal and more ugly than anything we experienced during the days of National Party (NP) rule.

The proof that apartheid public servants were far less corrupt than the current bunch of money-grabbing bureaucrats was that they drove distinctly cheaper cars and lived in middle-class and lower middle-class suburbs.

Today, state employees earn twice more than private-sector employees, on average, and openly ask for bribes and kickbacks during many transactions. Much of the conspicuous consumption, so vulgarly visible in South Africa’s major cities, is financed by corruption and profligacy with public funds, of which Nkandla is but the tip of the iceberg.

Ruminations on apartheid remind one of C Louis Leipoldt’s little poem, “Op my ou ramkiekie met nog net een snaar/ speel ek in die maanskyn deurmekaar.”

The apartheid “ramkiekie” with a single string normally ignores the many other ideologies and events that shaped South African history, including left-wing terrorism and the doctrine of so-called “people’s war” that destabilised our society to a far greater extent than mere segregation of institutions.

NP politicians were far less outspoken in their defence of segregation than many southern Americans. Alabama governor George Wallace, who ran for US president four times, famously said:

“In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

Are Americans also forever tainted by segregation, or does it only apply to South Africa?

Despite segregation, there was no hatred in the old South Africa and people generally got on well. Today, there exists real hatred between groups, as exemplified by xenophobic violence and farm murders. South Africa ’s sadistic culture of violence with its rampant crime, including child rape, was fostered by the lawlessness of people’s war and surely not by apartheid.

This piece also appeared in Business Day on 4 April 2014.

Donate or subscribe to praag!

An open letter to Steven Friedman

AB Amla
You could cut the racial tension with a thigh-pad.

by Adriaan du Toit

This post is a response to acclaimed political analyst and academic Steven Friedman’s Facebook post on the topic of Protea skipper AB de Villiers’ racist inclinations in post-match interviews.You can read it (and the frightening discussion that ensued) here.

If, by the time you read this, Mr Friedman has recovered from whatever emotional affliction triggered his outburst and subsequently deleted the status from his wall, here it is in full:

“For those of us who follow cricket – have you noticed that our limited overs captain AB de Villiers has a speech defect?: he can’t say the names of black players who do well. Today he got excited about Kallis and du Plessis, who scored 4 and 34, but somehow could not mention Amla who scored 92, Duminy who scored 43 or Tsotsobe who took 3 wickets. He does this after every game. Maybe our black players, if they want to be acknowledged, should play for New Zealand, whose captain is weird enough to judge his players by how well they do rather than their skin colour?”

Dear Steven Friedman
When I first read about your comment on iafrica.com, I was tempted to limit my response to a quiet shake of the head and, if time allowed, a grumble loud enough for the chap who sits in the cubicle opposite me to make eye contact with me disapprovingly. You see, despite my intense dislike for intellectuals who seek out controversy for the sake of publicly validating the relevance of their expertise, I’ve learnt to tolerate their eccentricities for the sake of my blood pressure. Unfortunately, the temptation to let this go was outweighed by how much I love the Proteas and how proud I am of what they have achieved on and off the field.

My motivation to address your statements was given a further boost when I visited your Facebook wall and read the comments that your students made on the post. I’m astonished at the influence your opinion has on them. They were so eager to comply, I wasn’t sure whether to be impressed by your potential as an arch-villain or depressed by your students’ lack of independent thought. I decided not to dwell on the matter since neither scenario shines a particularly flattering light on you.

AB Duminy
AB going in for the kill. Just be careful of his tainted blood, skipper.

I have little interest in debating the presence of racism in the upper spheres of cricket administration. Perhaps there is and perhaps there isn’t. This is the luxury enjoyed by senior members of these elevated circles; the majority of their activities and motivations are seldom the topic of much more than speculation. If evidence emerges, I will look at it and add my two cents, but I have no inclination to go looking for it. This is the luxury of occupying the lowest of the metaphorical spheres I keep referring to. I care about my beloved team, how they perform on the field and little else. I urge you not to interpret this ambivalence as acceptance of institutional racism. I’m as opposed to it as the next man. But I can see the next man – he’s pretty close to me – and it looks as if he’s got a lot on his mind. In fact, it looks to me as if all he’d like to do is to sit back for a while and bask in the comforting glow of the series victory over these mouthy Kiwis.

Sadly for my imaginary neighbour and I, our reverie has been interrupted by your outburst. Our happy memory of Brendon McCullum staring dejectedly into the middle distance as the reality of his team’s mediocrity dawns on him will now forever be polluted by your sophomoric and unjustified rant.

“How dare he describe my scholarly output thusly?!?” I imagine you asking incredulously through a plume of pipe smoke. (You may also be wearing a cravat.) Well, firstly, the logic and tone of your argument is not dissimilar to that of an adolescent in the throes of a neurotic dismemberment of their ailing romantic relationships. “Then he said he’s going to Dale’s party but I heard that Denise asked him to go to the Wimpy and he said that even though Tori and her sisters were gonna be there he would go because Stacee would probably be there with Toni’s friend from Durban.” Appropriating this tone for the sake of style is fine if you’re an editorial columnist making some kind of flippant social comment. Much less so if you’re a respected academic accusing a beloved public figure of racism.

Secondly, I’m surprised you’re not more sensitive to how the lack of research can impede an argument, especially one as intentionally provocative as yours. But I’m willing to put that oversight down to the same condition that caused the outburst in the first place. So, on the realistic assumption that you intend to stick to your guns and continue arguing your point, I’m going to make it easy for you and remove all the obstacles between you and the information you need to do so. What follows is a transcript of almost every post-match interview with AB de Villiers since his promotion to captaincy. Try not to choke on your shoe as you read it.

THE SRI LANKA SERIES

1st ODI
AB: “Dream start for me as captain. Some individuals stood up there – Morne Morkel and Amla. I thought there was something in the pitch for the bowlers and we used it. Guys running in and bowling at 140+ was good.”
Here he uses the white player’s name and surname while referring to the player of Indian descent by his surname only. It could mean he wants Hashim violently evicted from his home, or it could mean he didn’t want the viewers to confuse Morne with Albie. I’ll leave it to you to decide which is more likely.

2nd ODI
AB: “The toss didn’t play a big part today. We played good cricket throughout and I am very proud. We picked up wickets at crucial times, and Hash the Rock played really well. There would have been more pressure if they had got those 20-25 runs. Hash’s wife is yet to give birth, but he will be there for it [and will mostly miss the next game].”
I’ll admit it’s not ideal that he compared the Indian player to a “rock”. Rocks are pretty much the most useless things on earth. Unless you’re using them as a foundation for something, in which case they’re pretty damn awesome. I think – bear with me for a second – de Villiers may be speaking metaphorically here; comparing the attributes of a rock to the innings Amla played. This, I know from years of listening to cricket players recite the same clichés match after match, is a compliment of the highest order.
Also I think it’s worth pointing out that any racist worth his salt would probably have expected a black player to do as he’s goddamn told and not take liberties like being present for the birth of his firstborn in the middle of an international series. It’s possible that this indiscretion slipped past AB and the racist coaching regime. But it’s also possible that they’re incredibly happy for Amla and want to make a big deal out of the fact that he’s about to become a dad.

3rd ODI
Cricinfo reports no post-match comments from de Villiers. Possibly because he was out campaigning for the early release of the Waterkloof Four.

4th ODI
Very good game, we batted quite well up fornt [sic], could have scored more in the last 10. They batted really well, chased down 300. I’ll take responsibility for losing my wicket at a bad time, we could have got perhaps 330 if I stayed till the end. There are other areas for the team to work on. I wasn’t too happy with our fielding, it wasn’t the best outfield to field on either. Perera played extremely well, he made my job very difficult.”
No credit to any Protea player, despite Tsotsobe taking three wickets. Maybe because he believes Lonwabo should be carrying a pass-book. Maybe because he was incredibly disappointed at not winning the match and didn’t feel like giving anyone other than the opposition a compliment.

5th ODI
AB: “Things have been going my way, delighted with my form at the moment. I thought the boys did really well. Biff did extremely well, I told the press that he was going to come through, and I’m very happy for my man. There’s a lot to work on for us, but an [sic] happy with the way the boys fought till the end. Every ground supported us really well this series.”
No mention of Parnell, who took 2 wickets. Maybe because he thinks Wayne should be mowing someone’s lawn instead of playing cricket. Or maybe because Graeme Smith’s temporary return to form and Sri Lanka’s terrific run-chase outshone every other aspect of the match.

THE NEW ZEALAND SERIES

1st T20
AB: “Not a great start, I take responsibility for that. We were expecting them to open up with a spinner, not surprised at all. Overs 4 to 9 cost us, we didn’t cash in at all, but we fought back and in the end we got quite close. We played well in patches, but we want to get it all together in the next game.”
Again no mention of  any Protea player. This seems to be a pattern when we lose a match. Quite reasonable if you ask me.

2nd T20
AB: “There’s a few things we can learn, but overall I was very happy with keeping them to 170 with the short boundaries. Botha has very good plans and he keeps the batsmen under pressure. I was trying to tell Richard to get off strike once we were at 10 an over but he just kept sending them flying. He’s been fed a bit of biltong back home, but he has done this before so it’s not a one-off. We go to Auckland with momentum now, very happy.”
Here he doesn’t congratulate any of the black players. Perhaps because he carries a picture of Verwoerd in his wallet. Or perhaps because none of them did anything more spectacular than return figures of 4/22 or score the fastest century in the history of international cricket. Note also how he refers to the off-spinner by his surname only. Do you think this is because he lacks respect for Johan Botha? Or can you acknowledge that perhaps the use of a surname instead of a nickname is completely without meaning.

3rd T20
AB: “Amazing team effort, really proud of the men, we hung on at the end there. Really tough batting first and assessing what was a good total, we lost momentum in the middle overs, unfortunately we had a slow start with ball in hand but I told the guys to hang in there. I truly believe Marchant has got it, he has big match temperament, I think the whole team has that and we managed to get a few wickets to turn things around. We do feel very good about the win, but we want to play a certain standard of cricket and we still need to do that more consistently.”
You may have a point here. He refers only to a white player and uses his first name. A sign that he’s surreptitiously maintaining a stock of home-made weaponry in preparation for the Great South African Race War? No. He was probably just overwhelmed by an astonishing comeback topped off by this young player’s incredible final over.

1st ODI
AB: “We did really well in the field to restrict them. They had a couple of partnerships, but we kept getting wickets, and that is where we won the game. It was a slowish kind of wicket, and it is important to build pressure on these kind of wickets. JP felt a bit of pressure early on, he did not hit it as well as he would have liked, but he played an important knock. Faf did extremely well. I thought I constructed my innings well which was difficult on this pitch and in these conditions.”
What’s this?!? He’s giving credit to a  non-white player AND using his first name?!? DF Malan is spinning in his grave so fast he’s probably drilled a hole halfway to the other side already!

2nd ODI
AB: “We played consistently well today, Morne bowled exceptionally for us and set the trend. Morne just [sic] wickets at the right time for us. Always nice when someone starts well up the order like Amla this time, he made it easy for the middle order. Faff is a world-class talent, I’m looking forward to watching him grow into a world-class player. We’d like to do it 3-0.”
I can think of no justification for the lack of credit to Tsotsobe. It must mean he and his prejudiced cadre are developing a strategy they like to call The Final Final Solution. Or perhaps it means what any sober person who is not looking to court controversy thinks that it means; absolutely nothing.

There’s little more I can or want to say on this topic besides wondering what you could possibly do to fix the damage you’ve done with your statement. You’ve slandered the reputation of a man whose dedication and talent is something that should be a constant source of pride to all South Africans. You’ve created further division between races. You’ve misled eager (albeit alarmingly pliable) young minds. And, worst of all, you’ve trivialised racism.

I sincerely hope that you’re mature enough to withdraw your statement and apologise to AB de Villiers in a public forum.

Adriaan du Toit keeps a blog entitled anxious without vowels.