As a coffee lover and a person that has taught himself to manage the chronic South African sickness of seeing everything in black and white, I one day went through an interesting experience on this white and black thing. I was at a café somewhere in Tshwane (if Kallie Kriel agrees) where I ordered black coffee from a ‘non-black’ waiter. Oblivious of my attitude when ordering the waiter asked me if the milk in my coffee should be served hot or cold, I loudly responded and with a ‘baas’ attitude and said “I said black coffee!”.
The waiter went through to the kitchen and prepared a very hot black coffee for me. When he delivered it to my table he asked a very soul piercing question about my attitude to him when he wanted to know how milk should be served with my coffee. He asked “is the reason for drinking your coffee black because the milk is white or are there are other reasons. I laughed and my attitude was managed for the day, where after I became sensitised on how I relate with waiters as I order my favourite drink ‘black coffee’ with ‘brown sugar’ and ‘bran muffin’
In the matter between Julius Malema and the AfriForum’s judgement by Judge Lamont I became re-sensitised of the salient implications of my waiters question given the growing polarisation of our society. The judgement has not only reopened the debate about the South Africa proverbial elephant found in many a living room of families. The elephant has as its living room companion two wolves with unexplained intentions of enjoying the continued existence of the elephant whilst professing to be on a mission to rid the living room of the elephant.
When the subject of the elephant is opened for discussion in terms of how it actually came to being, who were or are its victims, how was its disablement fought, and what needs to be done to decisively deal with its removal from the living room without erasing the reality that there was an elephant in the living room and it left footprints that cannot be brushed away. In this understanding of the elephant, society relies on its ‘brightest’ to interpret the meaning of any action or activity celebrating and/or demeaning anything related to life with the elephant in the living room. Amongst the ‘brightest’ you will invariably find those that enjoyed sunshine or shadow as a result of their positioning, not by choice, around the elephant.
It is this historical positioning around the elephant that will determine how the ‘brightest’ experience the process of dealing with the elephant to allow unrestrained access to sunshine for everybody as agreement on the removal of the proverbial elephant occurs. Since philosophies of life inform how humans view and relate to phenomena, it will be unfair of society to expect from the ‘brightest’ amongst it to operate outside the coordinates set by analysis templates developed over decades of deliberate social engineering. Short term, and in some instances legitimate, justification of arguments has as a historical fact denied South Africa of an opportunity to experience the joy of co-existence because society withdrew itself into cocoons of self-interest that developed into monsters that are now manifest in the manner people deal with society’s own proud memory and history.
The truth about the racism that South Africa went through is that it did not only warehouse the conscience of society within the walls of what contains its soul but also damaged its ability to appreciate that reality. The monumentalisation of minority rights at the behest of a judicially managed process of shrinking majority rights has found not only a prophet in the Lamont judgement but a ‘fear driven’ component amongst the ‘brightest’. When rights shrink society and communities react in ways that discount any gains made towards social cohesion.
The emerging realignment of ethnic and race based loyalties at the expense of the collective good of society is fast becoming one of the liabilities of a Mandela-De Klerk facilitated settlement. The instilling of fear in those that appear and look weak in terms of ‘current’ weaponry is the new investment by those that seek to be martyrs in an environment that calls for statesmanship beyond the cosmetic embracement of the Mandela-De Klerk one. Viewed in a narrow legal prism as the judge seems to have done the judgement may be ‘defensible’ in a court of law thus created an impression of justice being done. It is in the outside court moral defensibility of the judgement that a call needs to be made to whatever is still left of South Africa’s statesmanship to answer the question ‘is it not time for us to think of CODESA 3’.
There are clearly matters arising from the 1993 settlement that procure for a South Africaness that declares to the world its resolve to effect a vision enshrined in the preamble of the current constitution. In this endeavour there needs to be a general rebirth in terms of defining our collective memory. The interrogation of our shrines as a collective and the narrow interpretation of what defines our diverse paths in this common history will not help us. Where are our leaders when Judges burn society; where are leaders when the legal lobby destroys the fragile soul space of South Africa. We do not have a good Springbok Team to pepper over these schisms. Narrow whiteness is as dangerous as narrow blackness; the judgement represents the epitome of the other whilst some responses seem to be a cry for a defence of the other.
Whilst the judgement was about the extent to which the ‘shoot the Boer’ song is hate speech, its implications have gone through to be more about the growing tension on ‘whiteness versus blackness’.
The waiter went through to the kitchen and prepared a very hot black coffee for me. When he delivered it to my table he asked a very soul piercing question about my attitude to him when he wanted to know how milk should be served with my coffee. He asked “is the reason for drinking your coffee black because the milk is white or are there are other reasons. I laughed and my attitude was managed for the day, where after I became sensitised on how I relate with waiters as I order my favourite drink ‘black coffee’ with ‘brown sugar’ and ‘bran muffin’
In the matter between Julius Malema and the AfriForum’s judgement by Judge Lamont I became re-sensitised of the salient implications of my waiters question given the growing polarisation of our society. The judgement has not only reopened the debate about the South Africa proverbial elephant found in many a living room of families. The elephant has as its living room companion two wolves with unexplained intentions of enjoying the continued existence of the elephant whilst professing to be on a mission to rid the living room of the elephant.
When the subject of the elephant is opened for discussion in terms of how it actually came to being, who were or are its victims, how was its disablement fought, and what needs to be done to decisively deal with its removal from the living room without erasing the reality that there was an elephant in the living room and it left footprints that cannot be brushed away. In this understanding of the elephant, society relies on its ‘brightest’ to interpret the meaning of any action or activity celebrating and/or demeaning anything related to life with the elephant in the living room. Amongst the ‘brightest’ you will invariably find those that enjoyed sunshine or shadow as a result of their positioning, not by choice, around the elephant.
It is this historical positioning around the elephant that will determine how the ‘brightest’ experience the process of dealing with the elephant to allow unrestrained access to sunshine for everybody as agreement on the removal of the proverbial elephant occurs. Since philosophies of life inform how humans view and relate to phenomena, it will be unfair of society to expect from the ‘brightest’ amongst it to operate outside the coordinates set by analysis templates developed over decades of deliberate social engineering. Short term, and in some instances legitimate, justification of arguments has as a historical fact denied South Africa of an opportunity to experience the joy of co-existence because society withdrew itself into cocoons of self-interest that developed into monsters that are now manifest in the manner people deal with society’s own proud memory and history.
The truth about the racism that South Africa went through is that it did not only warehouse the conscience of society within the walls of what contains its soul but also damaged its ability to appreciate that reality. The monumentalisation of minority rights at the behest of a judicially managed process of shrinking majority rights has found not only a prophet in the Lamont judgement but a ‘fear driven’ component amongst the ‘brightest’. When rights shrink society and communities react in ways that discount any gains made towards social cohesion.
The emerging realignment of ethnic and race based loyalties at the expense of the collective good of society is fast becoming one of the liabilities of a Mandela-De Klerk facilitated settlement. The instilling of fear in those that appear and look weak in terms of ‘current’ weaponry is the new investment by those that seek to be martyrs in an environment that calls for statesmanship beyond the cosmetic embracement of the Mandela-De Klerk one. Viewed in a narrow legal prism as the judge seems to have done the judgement may be ‘defensible’ in a court of law thus created an impression of justice being done. It is in the outside court moral defensibility of the judgement that a call needs to be made to whatever is still left of South Africa’s statesmanship to answer the question ‘is it not time for us to think of CODESA 3’.
There are clearly matters arising from the 1993 settlement that procure for a South Africaness that declares to the world its resolve to effect a vision enshrined in the preamble of the current constitution. In this endeavour there needs to be a general rebirth in terms of defining our collective memory. The interrogation of our shrines as a collective and the narrow interpretation of what defines our diverse paths in this common history will not help us. Where are our leaders when Judges burn society; where are leaders when the legal lobby destroys the fragile soul space of South Africa. We do not have a good Springbok Team to pepper over these schisms. Narrow whiteness is as dangerous as narrow blackness; the judgement represents the epitome of the other whilst some responses seem to be a cry for a defence of the other.
Whilst the judgement was about the extent to which the ‘shoot the Boer’ song is hate speech, its implications have gone through to be more about the growing tension on ‘whiteness versus blackness’.
I learned alot from this Dad. Humorous too,the cafe incident. I could almost see myself sitting at the same table as you.
ReplyDeleteDaddy probably knows this, I'm not into politics at all. But I see myself being your follower.
Nombulelo