Archive | Whiteness RSS feed for this section

Red October, Corrective Rape, and Idiocy

14 Oct

This bit from a blog by @AlbertBrenner1 at http://praag.org/?p=11057 concerns deeply.

“It only took six tweets of 140 letters/characters each to confirm said theory.This was how it was done. I simply asked her if she supported black lesbians protesting against “corrective” rape. She answered in the affirmative, of course. Then I pointed out that rape affects all women, not just black lesbians. Meaning that black lesbians form a sub-group protesting that which affects them specifically namely “corrective” rape. But, as mentioned before, rape affects all women, not just black lesbians.

From this it follows that it is logically and, even more importantly, morally inconsistent to laud one sub-group (black lesbians, in this case) for their “discriminatory” form of protest – i.e.they only protest against corrective rape, and not all rape – whilst demonising another (in this case, Red October whites) by accusing them of partaking in a “discriminatory” form of protest.. based on the fact that crime affects all, not just whites. Ergo, the rationale underpinning the protest by whites against their slaughter at the hands of blacks is no different to that of black lesbians protesting against corrective rape. Yet, the former is demonised while the latter is lauded and applauded by Britten and her MSM ilk.

It suffices to say that that which is good for the black lesbian goose is not good for the Red October white gander. This means that people like Britten discriminate on the basis of race – in terms of the above-mentioned biased sentiments expressed publicly. Given the above context, and what we know from all the standard definitions of racism, this would make Britten a racist.

– See more at: http://praag.org/?p=11057#sthash.wwWl3nfQ.dpuf

 

What concerns me is that it equates the protests by Black Lesbians on corrective rape to the Red October protest by some Whites focussing on rape of White women by Black men.

This is noxious, and problematic.

Black Lesbians are a highly marginalised group in society whose voice is rarely heard, listened to or taken seriously, there is no-one else to plead their case. That they focus on a form of  rape that affects them more than anyone else is not problematic. What is problematic is that society ignores their plight.

Then looking at the issue of White women being raped by Black men, this particular narrative has a long history and it has been argued is core to the development of the Afrikaner masculine identity. Their duty is to protect the purity of White women against the savages. To ignore this history is at best an omission and worst deliberate deceit.

Red October merely takes its place in this long tradition of Swart Gevaar, that was the bedrock of Apartheid and has recently had some rather tragic consequences in the case of Oscar Pistorius and the death of Reeva Steenkamp.

To argue that to demonise Red October is to be racist, is  to be full of it, and by it I mean South African White Privilege.

If we then look at another angle –  many White women have pointed out to @steve_hofmeyr that they were raped by White men, meaning that by racialising the rape of White women, Red October seeks to minimise/erase a significant problem within the White community by projecting it onto Swart Gevaar.

Lesbians by focussing on corrective rape, due to their lack of social power and the specificity of corrective rape, do not in any way erase or minimise anybody else’s narrative of rape. They protest a specific form of patriarchal domination.

Red October trades on specific narrative that sustained racial domination in South Africa for hundreds of years.

I am not going to comment on the writings of those attacked by @AlbertBrenner1 as his own writing is in itself heinous.  And he had the temerity to say I must read Biko to understand, sickening

Advertisements

Liberal Mindset that sustains racism

22 Nov

The whole mindset that sustains racism and White Privilege relies on plausible deniability.

Two examples that illustrate this are reactions to ‘Unfair to be White’ campaign (USA) and responses to #CapeTownisracist

The main tool is the use of  White social power to crush, diminish claims of racism

  • The ‘Unfair to be White’ campaign never really got off the ground due to the huge negative backlash, very little of which engaged the content of the campaign.
  • The sheer wall of White rage, based largely on ignorance, was too powerful.
  • The main argument was the unfairness to White people, with little regard paid to unfairness of racism.
  • The victory of that power and ignorance is then used as proof of the truthfulness of the counterargument. A recursively self-validating structure using Luhmann’s terminology from ‘Reality of the mass media’
#CapeTownisRacist was problematic because it took place on a public forum. It had to be crushed quickly. Previous reported incidents had been successfully ignored.
  • Argument 1: Linguistic Deflection – You cannot call a whole place racist
  • Argument 2: More Deflection – Cape Town is full of a*holes,but they are equal opportunity a*holes
  • Argument 3: More Deflection ‘But Blacks are racist too’
  • Argument 4: More Deflection ‘Proof, where is there proof’
  • Argument 5: Insults ‘Professional Black’
  • Very few even tried to engage with the issue of racism

The reason the counterattack was not successful, is that in South Africa over the last 18 years, a new force and power has started to exert itself. Blacks would not be silenced.

The motivation to crush and minimise is to maintain the illusion that racism is declining. Only when all else fails, is there grudging admittance of racism’s continuing power.

The latest uproar in the USA is over Jezebel social shaming of teenagers for racist tweets after Obama won re-election. Even more horrible , Jezebel contacted the schools to ask them to act and instruct these teenagers.

The horror, the outrage, how could they – these are teenagers, they are mini-people, how can you hold them accountable. This in a country which charges juveniles as adults in its’ criminal courts way too frequently.

Many are worried that this will backfire. The racist teenagers will get more racist due to the nature of intervention and should have been left as oblivious racists.

People do not change willingly. There has to be serious motivation to change and the longer racism is tolerated, the lower the motivation. Even more problematic, is that true change tends to be painful and will be avoided until not changing has serious consequences.

The Whiteness of FW de Klerk

16 Mar

Earlier today a tweet from the FW de Klerk Foundation floated into my timeline. I gave it scant regard but it called me back.

He wrote it all, in the Mail & Guardian http://mg.co.za/article/2012-03-16-a-nation-born-must-not-be-allowed-to-die

He argues that the ANC is undermining ‘the sustainability of the new South African nation that I believed was born on March 17 1992.’

The date of the national referendum where Whites voted to continue reform. He calls on all South Africans to defend that new nation which the White vote created.

Using that line, in the 1992 victory speech, is fully acceptable. 20 years later locating the date of birth of the New South Africa, as the day when Whites voted grants all agency for the creation of the New South Africa to the White population.

There are a number of other inclusive dates that can be called the birth of the New South Africa.

27 April 1994 – When all South Africans came together and ‘voted’ in a largely peaceful manner. By doing so, all South Africans proclaimed their commitment to the New South Africa.

4 December 1996 – The day the Constitution of South Africa was approved.  Since his argument is really about the Constitution, 1996 would have been consistent.

By choosing the referendum, he strips away inclusivity. He brings it back at the end  ‘ time has come for all our communities — not just White South Africans, as was the case 20 years ago — to stand up for the values and rights on which our new society has been based.’

He makes a stand as a White leader not a ‘Rainbow Nation Leader’

Kony 2012 has been criticised for removing agency from Africans and locating it anywhere else., while FW de Klerk manages to ignore years of contribution to South Africa.

Kony 2012 garnered outrage. FW de Klerk – silence because we are used to it by now.

Is it deliberate? No, it is just his framework.

Many South Africans claim that race is no longer relevant but continue to position White experiences and issues as the central ones. It is a  missed opportunity for a call to action for all South Africans.

Transcending race is a 2 way street.

cartoons 2010 back polar baear cartoon