In her answer to a question by a Rapport journalist on naming the people she does not like Annelie Botes responded “I am now going to be terribly honest. And let it shock this country. I do not like black people. I don't understand them ... I know they are people like me, I know they have the same rights as me. But I do not understand them. And then ... I don't like them. I avoid them, because I am afraid of them”.
It is in the honesty of the answer Annelie gave that has made her become a focus of scorn, and interestingly, outside the context of the racially polarised firmament that instructs all manner of discourse in this country. We have once again chosen to see in her comment our past, whilst going past our present.
If diversity is a keynote of social condition and opinion, it is therefore becoming increasingly dangerous for us as a nation to create a context of analysing the response of Ms Botes outside our various elements of this keynote. In her response it is clear that she is reflective of the originative historical context informing her prism of analysis.
The mere prefacing of her response with ‘I am going to be terribly honest’ is indicative of the emotional posture that may have been taken when the answer was given. The question is how far this is reflective of the many dinner table discussion points that are still outside the purview of society and yet shape the approach and attitude of many individuals in this country. Are we not dealing with some normality that only becomes abnormal when it leaves the secured space of dinner tables and family gatherings?
The withdrawal into our private spaces as society is one area that post Apartheid and post Mandela South African society has not comprehended in terms of how it affects our reactions to social phenomena such as crime. Our pre-occupation with cosmetic nation building gimmicks and not dealing institutionalised racism, have watermarked the need to come up with programmes that uproot racism. Institutionalisation included the promotion of literature and culture that entrenches white supremacy and the danger of the other; a potential premise of Ms Botes comment.
The subliminal messages in school, church and private youth, women and social club written material continue to shape most youth in this country. This condition is unfortunately the only non-racial phenomena that we seem to be doing well in its entrenchment. Whilst language is an important carrier of culture and tradition, it only becomes dangerous when it carries into the next generation social elements that have been accepted to be a crime against humanity itself.
It will therefore be a disservice for this country to ignore the force and power of literature the new generation is going through in order to shape their response to relations outside what their immediate family environment dictates. If the current statistics about literacy rates across race groups is correct, it therefore follows that in those societies and classes that literacy is reported to be the highest, parents and guardians continue to have the power over what their children read and thus learn.
It is a known fact that South Africa’s social condition that keynotes our diversity remains instructed by the historical development of race relations. The varying definitions of culture and own affairs has as its dominant sub-context race as a predominating criterion. Ms Botes has this sub-context as part of the aspects that define her as a person and writer. She did not voluntarily choose this sub-context but it forms a very big portion of what makes her formative environment as well as the salient rules governing membership therein.
It will not be surprising to find out that her position has actually become the prize of loyal membership to organised cliques of such society and therefore a residue of past social acceptance. It is in the same breath that sections of the same society find it difficult to reorient their conceptualisation of what constitutes struggle era nomenclature vis-a-vis a nation-building one. It is in the roots of what informs our diversity of outlook that we should reconceptualise the lessons provided by the Ms Botes and other experiences.
The withdrawal of her literary award is a case in point. Whilst it is important for society to send a clear and unequivocal message about the demonic nature of racism, this should not be at the expense of balanced judgement befitting of a country that South Africa has become. It is difficult to find the relationship between the literary prowess of Ms Botes and the fact that she has made the Rapport induced comments. If the SALA continues to withdraw the award it should be based on the content of the manuscript rather than what the author represents independent of her literary work. Our ability to navigate these forests will go a long way in our understanding of what constitutes good knowledge irrespective of who pens or pronounces on it.
Without sounding prescriptive on how to create an environment that makes it possible for the Annelie Botes of this world to feel free at verbalising their deeply held views about their fellow human beings, knowing that society will use such verbose as an opportunity to learn, a number of proposals to manage this sensitive process are made.
• There is a need to create space for society to understand the subliminal issues informing our form of racism; this is because South Africa has gone through open discrimination and its removal has now brought to the fore racism as a phenomenon of interracial co-existence.
• South Africa needs a specialised commission to deal with racism and its manifestations; such a commission should focus on educating the country on racism as an advanced form of discrimination and difficult to regulate yet easy to spot.
• The education department must ensure that non-racialism permeates its choice of literature across all race groups; should a particular group be found wanting in terms of written material translated version of text in other language should be created.
• Media should be encouraged to start a campaign along the lines of Lead SA to sensitise the country of this demon.
• Ms Botes should be embraced as a South African that became honest about her feeling and be subjected to re-education thus creating out of her an ambassador of the non-racialism we seek to create. There should racist for us to appreciate a non-racial future for an absence of racists will make us complacent or be vulnerable to disguised racism in the form of commentaries that are ideologically racist yet linguistically palatable
It is in the minds and hearts of South Africans where we find racism, any structural visibility only reflects its outcome of discrimination; and for that we have created a legislative framework that only criminalises discrimination and not racism. The ideological firmament of non-racialism requires therefore not only gimmicks but a brutal confrontation of ourselves as beings that once lived in a society that criminalised non-racialism and multi-culturalism. Ms Botes is therefore a hero in that she exposed that racism is more an elite issue as it is sustained by the educated elite more than the receiving poor masses of our society.
It is in the honesty of the answer Annelie gave that has made her become a focus of scorn, and interestingly, outside the context of the racially polarised firmament that instructs all manner of discourse in this country. We have once again chosen to see in her comment our past, whilst going past our present.
If diversity is a keynote of social condition and opinion, it is therefore becoming increasingly dangerous for us as a nation to create a context of analysing the response of Ms Botes outside our various elements of this keynote. In her response it is clear that she is reflective of the originative historical context informing her prism of analysis.
The mere prefacing of her response with ‘I am going to be terribly honest’ is indicative of the emotional posture that may have been taken when the answer was given. The question is how far this is reflective of the many dinner table discussion points that are still outside the purview of society and yet shape the approach and attitude of many individuals in this country. Are we not dealing with some normality that only becomes abnormal when it leaves the secured space of dinner tables and family gatherings?
The withdrawal into our private spaces as society is one area that post Apartheid and post Mandela South African society has not comprehended in terms of how it affects our reactions to social phenomena such as crime. Our pre-occupation with cosmetic nation building gimmicks and not dealing institutionalised racism, have watermarked the need to come up with programmes that uproot racism. Institutionalisation included the promotion of literature and culture that entrenches white supremacy and the danger of the other; a potential premise of Ms Botes comment.
The subliminal messages in school, church and private youth, women and social club written material continue to shape most youth in this country. This condition is unfortunately the only non-racial phenomena that we seem to be doing well in its entrenchment. Whilst language is an important carrier of culture and tradition, it only becomes dangerous when it carries into the next generation social elements that have been accepted to be a crime against humanity itself.
It will therefore be a disservice for this country to ignore the force and power of literature the new generation is going through in order to shape their response to relations outside what their immediate family environment dictates. If the current statistics about literacy rates across race groups is correct, it therefore follows that in those societies and classes that literacy is reported to be the highest, parents and guardians continue to have the power over what their children read and thus learn.
It is a known fact that South Africa’s social condition that keynotes our diversity remains instructed by the historical development of race relations. The varying definitions of culture and own affairs has as its dominant sub-context race as a predominating criterion. Ms Botes has this sub-context as part of the aspects that define her as a person and writer. She did not voluntarily choose this sub-context but it forms a very big portion of what makes her formative environment as well as the salient rules governing membership therein.
It will not be surprising to find out that her position has actually become the prize of loyal membership to organised cliques of such society and therefore a residue of past social acceptance. It is in the same breath that sections of the same society find it difficult to reorient their conceptualisation of what constitutes struggle era nomenclature vis-a-vis a nation-building one. It is in the roots of what informs our diversity of outlook that we should reconceptualise the lessons provided by the Ms Botes and other experiences.
The withdrawal of her literary award is a case in point. Whilst it is important for society to send a clear and unequivocal message about the demonic nature of racism, this should not be at the expense of balanced judgement befitting of a country that South Africa has become. It is difficult to find the relationship between the literary prowess of Ms Botes and the fact that she has made the Rapport induced comments. If the SALA continues to withdraw the award it should be based on the content of the manuscript rather than what the author represents independent of her literary work. Our ability to navigate these forests will go a long way in our understanding of what constitutes good knowledge irrespective of who pens or pronounces on it.
Without sounding prescriptive on how to create an environment that makes it possible for the Annelie Botes of this world to feel free at verbalising their deeply held views about their fellow human beings, knowing that society will use such verbose as an opportunity to learn, a number of proposals to manage this sensitive process are made.
• There is a need to create space for society to understand the subliminal issues informing our form of racism; this is because South Africa has gone through open discrimination and its removal has now brought to the fore racism as a phenomenon of interracial co-existence.
• South Africa needs a specialised commission to deal with racism and its manifestations; such a commission should focus on educating the country on racism as an advanced form of discrimination and difficult to regulate yet easy to spot.
• The education department must ensure that non-racialism permeates its choice of literature across all race groups; should a particular group be found wanting in terms of written material translated version of text in other language should be created.
• Media should be encouraged to start a campaign along the lines of Lead SA to sensitise the country of this demon.
• Ms Botes should be embraced as a South African that became honest about her feeling and be subjected to re-education thus creating out of her an ambassador of the non-racialism we seek to create. There should racist for us to appreciate a non-racial future for an absence of racists will make us complacent or be vulnerable to disguised racism in the form of commentaries that are ideologically racist yet linguistically palatable
It is in the minds and hearts of South Africans where we find racism, any structural visibility only reflects its outcome of discrimination; and for that we have created a legislative framework that only criminalises discrimination and not racism. The ideological firmament of non-racialism requires therefore not only gimmicks but a brutal confrontation of ourselves as beings that once lived in a society that criminalised non-racialism and multi-culturalism. Ms Botes is therefore a hero in that she exposed that racism is more an elite issue as it is sustained by the educated elite more than the receiving poor masses of our society.
Sometimes I think that race relations is an emotional issue than a political one. Ms Botes succinctly puts it that she hates black people. It is an expression of her emotions and they reside in her heart than in her head. So let her chose who she wants to love or hate as it is the case here. Her choices will be very wrong and provocative though if they suggest that she hates blacks because they are lesser or inferior than her. As you well put it, she needs to 'brutally confront' herself and take a stand. And she has taken a stand, she hates blacks. Period.
ReplyDeleteI find it ironic that you suggest some amount of education about the Post Mandela era yet she is so educated and could be belonging to the 'elite' clique. What she needs is a change of heart and I think that's a choice she has to make that is if she wants to change. I think SALA were right for withholding the award. As a writer how does she objectively write about her realty if she harbours such emotions about those who form part of that reality. SA is still a growing new democracy which is at its teens. We surely do not need a writer who will polarise the society and thus disable this teenager before it reaches adulthood. This despite how well she writes. And perhaps it is part of the education you suggest she needs. This is one lesson she can't forget. These awards should be awarded with nation building in mind.