LAXAppeal: why 197SAX is a failure

I have mulled over writing this piece – a critical review of the infamous University of Cape Town annual rag, SAXAppeal, and its place in the South African sphere of satire – for some time now. Alas, events conspired against me (the digital version was only made available online for download two weeks after print, so tough shit if you live outside of Cape Town; and it would seem my email to the SAXAppeal editor has been unanswered for weeks now – meaning that this entire controversy was irrelevant and dated by the time it reached me in Hermanus) and so it went unwritten – until I stumbled across older copies of the satirical publication in a coffee shop.

Reading previous editions and this latest one (entitled 197SAX) and seeing the glaring, stunning disparities between them made me change my mind. After all, it’s no secret to readers of this blog and those who know me that I have deep, deep love of the artform: satire has the power to shine a light on ridiculous topics and subjects in a way that traditional media or critiques cannot; unburdened by ‘factuality’, honed with wit and steeped in irony, the biting, scathing tone of satirical ‘journalism’ is what makes people like John Oliver and Charlie Brooker respected less as comedians and more as purveyors of quality reportage that not even ‘real’ newspapers can compete with.

SELLING SAX

For those of you who don’t live in a place where work starts at 9am, every year students at the University of Cape Town dress up (or down) and take to the streets of the Mother City to sell SAXAppeal, a satirical, humourous Uni rag that contains a variety of pieces – both funny and critical – that shed light and levity on student life.

This year, however, it would seem that a fit of puritan progressive wrath has swept through the editorial team: decrying their history as “problematic”, “sexist” and “elitist”, this year’s production has focused (almost entirely, but we’ll get to that in a bit) on serious pieces aimed at “a new narrative…. to amplify the voice of the students… pushing boundaries and challenging the status quo.” In a single word – stamped incessantly in bold, scary red through its pages – they’re looking for “controversy”.

“Today, when people think of SAX Appeal, they think of drunk, scantily-clad students selling an equally explicit magazine. A magazine that has been filled with blatant misogyny, racism and discriminatory statements, a magazine created by an overwhelmingly white editorial team, a magazine with no meaning or substance.”

And by throwing the baby out with the bathwater, controversy is what they’ve found.

BUT IS IT SATIRE?

Sitting in that coffee shop, paging through old editions of the ‘zine, it suddenly struck me how very much SAXAppeal had changed. The contrast is stark: a side-by-side comparison with any of the editions pre-2016 (or should that be ‘pre-woke’?) shows quite clearly how this fundamental shift in editorial vision has changed the publication.

Where before I could expect funny and unapologetic illustrations and articles that took on topics as varied as space, sex, sport, religion, homophobia, and how to use a condom, the latest pages are stripped bare of anything resembling satire. In the over 100 pages of content that the 197SAX brought me, I’d say that maybe 8 articles or images echoed the self-aware, self-deprecating humour of the previous writers.

The definition of satire is not, of course, fixed. While it is intended to be humourous, the main aim is social criticism – but a key marker of any satire is irony. Sarcasm, exaggeration, comparison, analogy, and a whole host of other tactics can be deployed, but the key here is that there exists some kind of an irony between the writing and the subject matter.

The most historic examples of the genre, like ”Johnathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal show that a biting, dark irony in the writing is what drives the art and how powerful it can be.

And yet it is this core idea that is sorely missing from the pages. Instead, a croaky, dry, humourless husk of “political correctness” (the mot du jour bandied about by critics on social media) is what greets you: but worse yet, this Politically Correct don’t-wanna-offend-anyone mantra has pervaded the publication to the point where the satire and jokes are explained or countered with disclaimers, author’s asides or outright explanations of why they’re just joking and we shouldn’t take it seriously.

“But maybe that’s the point?” I asked myself. “Maybe their shift in vision is aimed at introducing critical thinking and serious reflection into the student body? Maybe giving up laughter is the price we pay for a more equitable society?”

And yet I can’t believe that, because as serious and reflective as the included pieces are, they, too, are treated with this opt-out mentality: right at the very beginning of the publication, in stark, BOLD letters, says:

“Or even the authors themselves.” If the new SAX wants to be like the politically-minded, outspoken older SAX, then why the spineless vacillation?

But before I generalise with brush strokes too broadly, I want to critically review the “satire” contained within.

ALLERGEN WARNING: CONTAINS SATIRE?

With titles like “Dear White Boys”, “White South Africans”, “Ableism” and “Your Forgotten Privilege”, you can guess that this year’s edition wasn’t exactly packed with light-hearted chuckles. But before you’ve even given a peek at an article, readers are treated to a Trigger Warning-esque disclaimer in glaring red giving us an ALLERGEN WARNING that this mag contains SATIRE, CRITICAL THOUGHT and CONTROVERSY. Immediately following is a glossary of terms that will get you up to speed with how much of a privileged, problematic asshole you are, and then finally, a lovely condescending piece explaining how to “read” SAX and her “satire”.

Well, undeterred, I checked my privilege thrice, said a dozen “Hail bell hooks” and dove right in. After all, I’ve seen satire used to amazing effect in subversive themes: Key and Peele, Dave Chapelle, and dozens of other comedians have used irony and humour to shed light on serious ideas and make you think about your beliefs. Excited to see how SAX would use this as a tool to educate and inform us on controversial ideas, I scrolled down.

But as a satirist, I was wholly disappointed. With only 8 too-short-but-sweet satirical pieces peppered intermittently between heavy pieces on race, gender and privilege, there isn’t much in here that justifies the huge SATIRE stamp they overuse. (There’s lots of passable slam poetry, if that’s your thing).

The first, The State of the Nation Address, is a strong piece of satire taking the perspective of President Zuma. It’s filled with hard-hitting irony and snarky, dark jokes such as “I congratulate Miners Shot Down on winning an International Emmy. Maybe one day South Africans will see it” and “I have once again focused exclusively on the interests of the middle class, and neglected the important issues of land redistribution, affordable quality education and inefficient service delivery. Maybe those issues will make it into next year’s speech.”

However, it’s only 22 pages later that we’re treated to a second helping. Ameera Conrad’s Dear White Boys uses the stereotypical Plumstead-living, Mumford and Sons-consuming White Boy to dig at the idea of privilege and prejudice relating to your skin colour. A White Boy myself, I’d have to admit that I was kind of disappointed: is this the worst my skin colour can earn me as a stereotype? I was thinking that my premature baldness, tiny dick and rich father giving me a small loan of a million dollars would have Trump’ed these relatively benign traits, but each to her own I guess.

But it is right here that we start to see the cracks appear in SAX, thanks to tensions between their editorial mandate of Attacking Prejudice and Privilege and SAX’s mission as a comedic outlet. If we should be less prejudiced and steer away from stereotypes, then how can they turn a blind eye to the jokes in this piece that Muslim boys are misogynist and that Black Boys only want to fuck white girls? While satire can be an effective weapon in combatting stereotypes and educating readers, I don’t believe that the goals of humourless PChood and SAX’s vision this year are at all compatible. Satire *is* problematic. And that’s exactly what makes it so powerful and entertaining.

MAY CONTAIN TRACES – BUT ONLY TRACES - OF SATIRE

A few pages later, we’re treated to the shining example of the entire magazine: Pierre de Vos’s delightful, cheeky, self-deprecating and moving column looks back on the irony of learning under violent figures (“a torturer and a murderer”) from South Africa’s colonial history, and the fact that these monuments still stand in their places of reverence today. It’s a great piece that reveals how 197SAX’s vision could have been fulfilled without ditching the old humour and sharp writing.

But straight after that, we are shown how the goals of new leadership and the paper’s old identity do not gel. The next piece, a board game parody entitled MeNOPOLY, is a scathing indictment of the ANC’s actions and betrayal of their central tenets and vision. It acerbically pokes fun at how cronyism can infect a noble movement. But, again, in a quest not to offend, a clunky, awkward Disclaimer is tacked on, effectively making the joke completely redundant:

And this is 197SAX’s problem: that they’re afraid to commit to making a joke (even one that would otherwise perfectly meet their goals). In the next example, You’re Not That Liberal (Shannon Krausey, Nicole Dunn and Mikhail Moosa), that favourite White Liberal stereotype is the centre of focus. But rather than letting the joke speak for itself – the irony that the beliefs of this stereotype are self-contradictory and ridiculous though parodic quotes – they stop mid-joke and explain why this brand of liberalism is left wanting.

This is a huge disappointment. These kinds of White Stereotypes have been done so, so well: from Hard Eddy’s Gaaide To Laaif, Anton Taylor’s Jozi Shore, The Wayan Brothers’ White Chicks, or our local Tiger’s Guide, it’s incredible that such a huge opportunity was squandered. Apart from failing to recognise that “liberal” is a description and not a prescription (it’s a No True Scotsman fallacy - you can show liberal values without being liberal – ie egalitarianism or libertarianism), the tone comes across as a bossy mom telling you why you aren’t good enough.

It’s also around the same time that 197SAX shows its one-dimensional flatness. The next satirical piece up is “White Tears”, and – you guessed it – it’s about white people. But rather than being purely satirical, it’s really just a bunch of things that people say that - depending on context – may or may not be worthy of ridicule. Had this been fleshed out more – Christ, has no one watched Safferland’s incredible Tiphany’s (with a pee-aych-why) Guide to Sandton Survival? – it could have been a fantastic and biting piece that dismantles and ridicules first-world problems.

And while Shesus* writes a rather splendid piece called Feminism and Christianity pt3, the power of her irony is again undone by the incessant use of SATIRE trigger warnings and editorial disclaimers stating that :

Finally, the last in a too-sparse offering of laughs, the “News25” parody. It’s probably as close as any of the pieces come to Poe’s Law, that extreme of “wait, is this a joke or actually real, I can’t tell” (you know, unless the entire 197SAX was some ultra-subversive Poe’s Law parody of MustFallism and the progressive left – in which case I’m fucking blown away, well bloody done, mate, you got me). I’m not sure if merely recreating the hateful slurs of News24 actually says anything clever about society, but hey, I love me a good Penny Sparrow reference. If I could, I would bus in a dozen more.

BUT MATT, YOU’VE MISSED THE POINT!

… I hear you cry. “This is about CRITICAL THINKING. Who cares if it’s CONTROVERSIAL? It’s just SATIRETRIGGERWARNING. You haven’t even spoken about the serious, hard-hitting content in the rest of the magazine!”

Well, I’ve thought about that, and quite frankly if 197SAX is a project aimed at serving marginalised voices and repoliticising the students, I would say it’s too filled with awkward contradictions and small hypocrisies to be called a success.

In its opening, it denigrates magazines like Cosmopolitan and Heat. I don’t disagree – I’ve never like them; but then, they’re not my aimed at my demographic. They aren’t written for me – and besides, attacking a publication and dismissing everything they publish as mindless or irrelevant is fallacious. It would be like me saying “don’t buy SAX, it’s fuckin’ garbage”. Content should be judged on its own merit, and not prejudiced by where it’s published.

Then we have the awkward space of cultural appropriation and “marginalisation of lived experience in sex workers” to deal with. The former comes around once a Halloween, but often those brandishing the tar and feathers forget that the very concept of Halloween – right down to the costumes, masks, trick or treating, and candy – was ALL ‘appropriated’ from various cultures and systems of belief, going all the way back to Paganism and Wiccan beliefs. The same goes for “Mexican” sombreros or dreadlocks : Sombreros originate from 13th century Spain, and are thought to have been brought across by the Mongols before that; dreadlocks appear in a variety of cultures, societies and religions across history. No culture is pure, and any culture that tries to exist in a vacuum withers and dies. Just look at the Afrikaans (if you’re feeling butthurt, just remember my surname).

The latter is slightly more jarring. One of SAX’s first articles, written by the erudite and ‘woke’ Caitlin Spring, Selling Sax, throws itself on the altar of next-level liberal ultra-correctness, likening the act of selling a magazine on the streets (if you’re scantily clad, that is) to a heinous act that mocks and spits on the mistreatment of sex workers.

Now, I’m not sure what kind of massive leap of the imagination it took to make this tenuous, ridiculous link, or the selective vision that ignores the massive body of counterexamples and themed dress-ups and says, “yes, every woman selling SAX in the past few years has been dressed like a prostitute”, but if woman wearing heels and short skirts is being attacked, then isn’t that policing what women can and can’t wear? How is this massive jarring dissonance – between their apparent beliefs about being ‘woke’ and their policing women’s bodies instead of attacking legislation and politicians – be accepted? How is this hypocrisy not self-damning?

And that’s not even taking into account some of her more ridiculous claims: “As long as some men rape, all men are potential rapists”. I’m not even going to justify that with a rebuttal, except to say she is stupid, so therefore I’m going to treat all women as potentially stupid. Let’s just hope a minority doesn’t commit a crime: that might make things racist up in here.

And what about Nigel Patel’s The Decolonial Sex Project? This so-called “intersectional intercourse over colonised cocks” states in no uncertain terms that “your Tinder preference for white people is racist” but ALSO that “when you fetishise bodies of colour you participate in… racist throwback”. So you’re racist either way, I guess.

Let’s not forget Nicole Dunn’s The Holy colonial Spirit, which argues that secularity and shunning Christianity is a necessary part of the project of decolonisation (I would agree, but I think that it’s a wood for the trees argument that still doesn’t evaluate the existence of a conventional Creator). Doesn’t this contradict Conrad’s earlier demand that “when you speak to Brown Girl, don’t say ‘you’re too educated to be religious?’”.

And what about Dan Corder’s claim in Dress to Oppress that Harry Potter, Star Wars and Game of Thrones are ‘not black enough’ and that you shouldn’t try to express your love of fictional characters through cosplay or dress-up parties because it’s so problematic. Add this to Jordan Pickering’s inflammatory white guilt and self-effacement through “if you’re a white South African, you are either a racist or you’ve joined the same lifelong recovery program” (White South Africans). No, fuck you very much Jordan, because I don’t make it a habit to casually smear an entire ethnic group.

Their hypocrisy is even more obvious when you consider that Spur – which they lambasted in their opening editorial as “People with a taste for Cultural Appropriation” – has an entire, full-page in this edition. They might say they don’t get to pick advertisers, but they must also understand that these things undermine their very message. It would be like me writing a damning article about tax evasion and my newspaper taking a full-page advert for Mossack Fonseca or Jimmy Carr’s upcoming comedy tour.

Indeed, their narrative is further undone where they employ weasel words and readily accepted ideas without a statistical basis. Merely writing that “classism, misogyny, and trans*-antagonism…. Is rife in our tertiary institutions” does not make it true, and while I’m not enough of an idiot to pretend they don’t exist on campuses (across the entire world) I’d never presume to state they’re a rampant, out-of-control scourge that unilaterally defines all higher education.

TOO MANY SHORTCOMINGS

As a political project, I would also say that 197SAX’s new mission has a dire lack of critical self-awareness. Much content – as it stated in their magazine – is sourced from the organisations this school of thought supports, such as several universities’ charters of FeesMustFall movements. Now, in and of itself, this isn’t a problem. But having been on the ground at the Rhodes University fees protests and seen some of the (to borrow a word) “Problematic” behaviour and attitudes of these organisations, I would say that a free platform to disseminate their views without the CRITICAL THINKING they’re so sure they practice is truly dangerous.

By their nature, these student movements are not democratically elected. There is no set, universal mandate. There are no policy documents or membership criteria that can control and discipline aberrant behaviour or violent acts of so called “members”. Their demands and powers are, in effect, unlimited and subject to sudden, erratic change. Factionalism is rife. Hijacking by subversive political groups is too common. Without a clear leadership structure, how can university administrators, politicians or journalists critically engage with the movement? And how can we protect journalists who are – as at Rhodes University – harassed and told to stop filming, stop tweeting, forced to delete tweets and reportage from their phones, or asked to leave a university hall and cease all reporting in a public space? Looking at the track record of petrol bombings, riots and incinerated university buildings and vehicles, we can see that being careful and thorough with our beliefs – instead of morally smug and self-righteous, claiming we are ‘woke’ with some hidden, members-only knowledge that believers are under no expectation to share with those who question them (see pg78, Educating the Intolerant for more details – you know, “go do your readings” because “it’s not my job to educate you”) – is singularly crucial to uphold the central tenets of our shaky democracy.

In oversimplifying and abandoning their ways as ‘racist, elitist, sexist dude-bro tacky mom jokes’ they’ve missed a golden opportunity to introduce new concepts and debate ideas in a way that people can understand and empathise with. To say that there isn’t good content or ideas in this edition would be in bad faith (I enjoyed the interviews, especially with McKaiser), but the entire publication just comes across as aggressive and inflammatory.

197SAX is a fundamentally flawed failure, given its incessant polarised views. It claims to be the voice of students, of enlightenment, of a new narrative of freedom and equality, but really, all it does is judge and seek to control people, to shame and guilt them into self-flagellation and apologies: to tell them what to think and what to feel and what to wear and who to love and how to do it.

This year, SAX sucks.

If you’d like to support SAXAppeal, SHAWCO and RAG in their noble efforts to raise funds for underprivileged youth, please, check out their website and make a donation. if you want to read it for yourself, please purchase and download a copy of 197SAX.

Study finds Asian child bones may save the rhinos

The medical research community is celebrating today, after conservation experts discovered a scientific breakthrough that could potentially save thousands of endangered Black and White Rhinos.

According to researchers working at the Institute for Animal Medical Studies, the answer could lie within the crushed-up bones of Asian people. Preliminary findings of the report now suggest that Asian bone has the power to turn these otherwise docile creatures into horny breeding machines - a potential turn-around for their decimated populations.

The discovery - which has profound ramifications for rhino populations threatened by extinction - has come just in time too.

"It really is a game-changer," said head research manager Jenn Oside. "We've been having problems with our rhinos. They have been in long-term commitments with other older rhinos, and the spice of their love lives just isn't there any more. This medicine is helping them with some of their... less hard problems. If you know what I'm saying."

However, research and business analysts have been quick to say that current market trends are just not feasible to turn it into a working cure to the current extinction threats.

"It turns out that there are a lot of people who get all upset just because we want to crush up something they love into a cure for sexual problems," said Jake Henderson, lead chemical engineer for the program. "Hell, some places even have laws in place to stop these kinds of medicines."

These stumbling blocks, however, will not stop them, says Henderson.

"Right now we're working on more... inventive... ways of getting our Asian Bone. We are currently sending some key businessmen to hire the marginalised poor to go into schools and child reserves to acquire the required materials, he said. "These men and women would form part of the Program for Ossified Asian Chemical Help, a highly specialised task force that uses humane methods such as guns and knives to extract the valuable bone. Right now, Asian child bone can fetch almost R12 000 per kilogram on the black market. Our POACH-ers would be directly creating wealth and economic empowerment."

Henderson also noted plans to humanely remove the bone from the children's limbs.

"Now that these kids live protected in-door environments, they no longer have an evolutionary need for their bone. It isn't wrong to cut out these vestigial organs, because they don't really use them," he said.

However, the commission has come under fire from scientists and legal experts, saying that the cures are baseless and draw on a tradition of silly superstitions.

"There is nothing in an Asian child's bones that invigorates a Rhinoceros's sexual prowess," said animal scientist and game ranger Tony Veldshoen. "It's just calcium, potassium, and ossified cells, utterly devoid of any aphrodisiac qualities."

This, however, is not stopping Henderson and his team.

"Who cares if it 'isn't scientifically proven' and 'has no actual basis in biochemistry' - if makes the rhinos feel good and they can really feel the benefits!. Just because it's bull dust, doesn't mean it's bulldust. Besides," he said, "they said that same lie about rhino horn giving you a heightened libido. Next thing you'll tell us homeopathy and reflexology are just farcical cons."

Maties inspires new TV show

UPDATE 13/02/16 7:00am: Muse and Abuse would like to apologise for this insensitive image and then retract that apology and go back to our original stance before apologizing again and retracting our retraction. Sorry.

Pic source of Stellies: Stellenbosch by Carton on Flikr under a Creative Commons 2.0 licence.

Racist universities must fall, says third-year protester with late assignments

Defiant and committed: young Jason Eames is taking a stand
against racist universities and their oppressive
hand-in schedules.

Citing the gross injustices meted out against his fellow students, exorbitant university price hikes that will make it increasingly difficult for financially unstable students to afford study, and that economics tutorial assignment that he just didn’t have time to finish last weekend, a student protester has taken a defiant stance against “racist, oppressive universities”.

The brave and defiant young Jason Eames, who also didn’t finish his Accounting 3 term essay that is due at 4pm this afternoon, said that extreme actions such as tyre burning and blockading roads were entirely necessary “to raise awareness and get the university’s attention and also maybe an extension”.

“This isn’t about you or me or even that tut assignment on fiscal policy that we had to hand in at 8am this morning – this is about equality,” said Eames at a press conference at the pool. “We have to do what needs to be done: shut down the university. If we do nothing now, then what will our children say to us ten years’ time, or my economics tutor on Thursday morning when I pitch up and haven’t done any of the prepared readings or written responses?”

He went on to add that “Jesus, but I’m hanging hard” and that “no ways I’m flippen going to lectures today”.

And despite widespread anger and frustration at the night-long protest and disruptive protest action, student political analysts say the timing of the protest could not be better.

“Yes, there is a planned price hike for next year,” said politics editor for campus newspaper Actstoolate, Jeremy Poltoo, “but also my ComSci prac exam is in two weeks and I’m basically fucked. If this screws up test schedules and shifts SWOT week a couple of days, then it will all have been worth it. When we wake up in a more equal, just society where I don’t have to hand in that assignment I was never going to do anyway, will anyone of us care that we couldn’t sleep all night?”

Vocal critics of the protest must, says Polltoo, remember that this protest is aimed at helping all students.

“Some might say that I’m hijacking an important national debate for my own selfish agenda, or that I’m bandwagoning on others’ difficulties and struggles,” he said. “But to those idiots I say ‘you’re ignorant, you haven’t done your readings’. I mean, neither have I, but basically you should be thanking me for giving us a day or three to catch up.”

And students are showing their support.

“I think it’s great,” said Jessica Wyt-Teers. “It’s nice to see so much free parking space on campus for once; and having another Facebook topic that will quickly devolve into race-based mud-slinging is always a plus."

Others, however, are not so supportive.

”This whole thing is bloody ridiculous,” said one second-year. “These guys kept me awake all night, brought the university to its knees and faced potentially dangerous riot police, and for what? Lowered university fees? More reasonable terms and payment options on the Minimum Initial Payment? A more affordable education? I mean, who the hell do these inconsiderate protester pricks think they are?”

Turning topic into race, gender issue “exactly what was needed”

True progress showed itself on Facebook today, after an innocent, inoffensive status was immediately turned into a racial and gender issue.

The post, which was a harmless joke about the Springbok’s match last weekend against New Zealand, only lasted 12 minutes before being skewed and twisted out of context and proportion to become an embittered flamewar about racism and sexism in the white-supremacist-capitalist patriarchy of televised sports culture. In just one day it attracted thousands of comments and arguments from incensed online commenters.

The status’s author, Jake Hendersen, now says that he’s glad they’ve started a “conversation” around race and sexism.

“You know, when I posted my status I just wanted to poke fun at New Zealand friends about this weekend’s match and say ‘springboks r the best lol all blacks are so useless’, not knowing my awful spelling would cause a digital meltdown,” he told reporters this morning.

“But now that hundreds of people are typing out ALL-CAPS hate speech, racial slurs, ad hominem attacks and demands that the idiots on the opposing side go read a fucking book, I’m glad to see a ‘discussion’ has started. This is just the first step one a long, arduous journey to a future free of racism, gender-based hatred, and harmless humour.

The post, which now stands at 21 485 likes and 11 792 comments, has been called “just what we all needed” by Human Rights advocacy groups.

“This is how we change the world: by getting people coming together, talking, discussing, and calling each other 'total retards who haven’t even read a book in their damn lives',” said chief researcher for Rights For All, Nelson King Jr. “You know, a lot of people might say, ‘oh, Nelson, but completely misunderstanding and detracting from the simplistic comedic value of the original post and embroiling the entire internet in a foetid clusterfuck of ad hominem attacks and fallacious, shallow arguments littered with faulty logic or emotional jabs will just divide and separate us all,’ but that’s where they’re wrong,” he said.

“This is how true progress is made: by just putting everything on the table, showing our cards, and turning every internet user against each other in a horrible, embarrassing hate-thread that everyone tires of in just minutes.”

However, internet analysts now believe such a peace could be all too brief.

“People have the ability to overcome great barriers and create a better, more tolerant future of peace and prosperity devoid of casual humour,” said web expert Hilby Bloggin.

“But come on, this is the 21st century. How could there ever be lasting peace when every ten minutes we have something like Caitlyn Jenner or Cecil the Lion to hate each other over?”

White girl saves Africa

Haley Smith: part-time volunteer, Gender Studies graduate
and saviour of the biggest country on Earth

Famine, poverty, war and human rights abuses in Africa are no more, after stunning news has emerged that a 22-year-old white girl has singlehandedly saved the entire continent.

The American liberal arts graduate and volunteer worker, who is on her gap year between degrees and “wants to maybe work for the UN one day”, reportedly saved the struggling, war-torn and problem-riddled continent after just fourteen days of volunteer work at Uganda-based NGO aid group Helping Hand.

“Honestly, the news just blew us all away,” said the presidents of nearly 60 African countries in a joint statement. “It was just supposed to be a short-term stay at an organisation working with villagers living under the breadline and teaching English to Ugandan children, but after just a fortnight there Haley [Smith] managed to rescue the whole continent from the precipice of darkness and death.”

The presidents added that, while most volunteer stays like these merely address surface-level, minor problems in just one tiny part of a gigantic, multinational continent, Smith managed to enact the exact kinds of massive and sweeping cultural, societal, economic and legislative reforms necessary to fix not just the symptoms but also the causes of the myriad systematic and grave problems that dogged Africa.

“That she has succeeded where millions of hopeful, naïve young Westerns – even celebrities - have failed is just singularly remarkable,” they said. “And for that, we are deeply, deeply grateful.”

Since the momentous news, millions of Africans have poured out their heartfelt thanks and praise.

“Thank you so much, Haley,” said Democratic Republic of Congo citizen, Grace Ladumba, who no longer needs fear being murdered in a civil war caused in part by the external meddling of foreign interest groups thanks to young Smith’s tireless efforts to dig a well and play soccer with fly-covered five-year-olds. “You know, we see America in such turmoil because of the brutal, dictatorial police force there – perhaps we should return the favour and send some of our young adults to save your people?”

And despite this massive outpouring of appreciation, Smith remains humble.

“Really, it’s the people of the beautiful country of Africa that I should thank,” she said. “They have profoundly affected me for the rest of my life: I can safely say that, no matter where my future will take me, my Facebook profile picture will never be the same again.”

Racist shocked at friend’s overt display of liberalism

Friends and family of a Johannesburg man have expressed disgust and shock today, after his embarrassing and brazen display of outright liberalism at a dinner last night.

According to those closest to 26-year-old Jacob Van Rensburg, the liberal-arts student went on a “long and loathsome” rant about equal rights and the so-called ‘unscientific approach to apparently race-based characteristics’.

“We were just sitting there, having a nice dinner, enjoying a lovely couple of beers, talking about how these blerrie baboons are destroying the country, and he suddenly just blurts out this vile and twisted monologue about ‘outmoded stereotypes’ and ‘a backwards and overly facile conflation of genetic and socioeconomic factors’,” said Jacob’s father, Adrien Willem Bennie (AWB) Van Rensburg. “I think it goes without saying that we’re all utterly repulsed by this horrific outburst of tolerance and understanding.”

His mother recalled the traumatising evening, fighting back her tears.

“It was such a nice get-together,” she recalled. “His uncles from Orania and our grandfather, who emigrated to Australia in April of 1994, had come down for the holidays. Anyway, we were talking about the crime problem and Eskom and corruption and thievery, when Jakkie just starts yammering on about how racial characteristics have no innate bearing on intelligence. It was so embarrassing! And he was doing it right in front of our white waiter! I think the worst thing was that we couldn’t even chide him on his awful, naïve, worldly views because he was paying for the meal.”

Jacob has since apologised for his “utterly loathesome rant”, saying that he had assumed it was safe to air such unconventional views.

“You know, I’d had a bit too much to drink, a few too many beers, and I thought that I was in a safe, private space – among family and like-minded friends,” he explained contritely. “I apologise for my deeply shameful words, and promise to never again let such lucidity and common sense come between me and my family again.”

His family have since accepted his apology, saying that Jacob ‘seems to be on the right track again.’

“We’re confident he’s realised the error of his ways,” said his father. “I mean, yesterday he dropped the k-bomb when a waiter short-changed us.”

“Now if we could only do something about his stupid stance against homophobia.”

Black people can't be racist, and other UCT scandals

It’s been a while, but Guest Writer Johan Van Eksteen is back – and this time, he’s not pulling any punches. On his hit list today: the UCT political rhetoric around racism after the successful removal of the Rhodes Statue.

My dear friends, it’s been a while. Since my last exposé on the Rhodes Statue, much has happened that has probably left you dazed and confused, like a Woolworth’s shopper trying to choose between two equally expensive packets of low-GI bread. So, without further ado, let me dive right into the muck to find the gems of truth we all desire so very much.

UCT students want black only spaces

A while back I spluttered on my morning coffee and melkbeskuit when I read about UCT students hosting a black-only closed event for law students in Kramer at UCT.

But actually, this is a good thing. We need closed spaces that are safe for us to discuss one immovable, unrefuted idea with people who only agree with us. In university, it is important that we give as much a safe space and respect as possible on campus for university students to share one idea in tight-knit, polarized groups.

But this just isn’t enough. How can we expect black students at UCT to feel truly safe to express themselves if there are still so many places where the hateful colonial history and embedded, oppressive culture of white privilege inflict daily mental violence? We need more safe spaces: Black-only residences; Black-only courses; and Black-only bathrooms.

Of course, this move is clearly not intended to divide the students at UCT, no! This is progress though separate unity. However, we live in an equal, egalitarian society – one in which we cannot discriminate against anyone because of the colour of their skin, sex or gender (we’ll get to our awful, anti-progressive Constitution in a bit). So we’ll need to be fair and make white-only discussion spaces for them to talk about being oppressive hatelords. We’ll need coloured-only spaces for coloured people to talk about the difficulties of being caught at the halfway house in system that only recognises binaries of white and black. Then, as is fair and just, we’ll need to make larger spaces for them to feel truly safe – white only residences, coloured only classrooms, international student only cafeterias, where they can eat without having to feel South Africa’s ingrained and xenophobic mentality of ultranationalism.

UCT students claim blacks can’t be racist; whites can’t experience racism

However, this amazing student organisation went one step further and finally proved what I’ve always wanted to say: that racism is not a two-way street and that anti-white racism doesn’t exist.

“But Johan!” I hear you shout in vituperative, frothing rage. “that’s impossible! Racism is the belief in superiority or inferiority based on different skin colour!” And yes, that’s what it may look like – but you’re wrong. Racism of course has nothing to do with race – it’s about power.

You might feel uncomfortable with someone calling you “a fucking stupid white honkey” and “kill the boer” and even “you bloody white bitch, go back to Zimbabwe” – but this isn’t racism.

The author of this statement is right: racism is about the expression of power. However, I would like to take his logic one step further and say that nobody – especially white people – can be racist. After all, racism is tied to the expression of power, is it not? And power – and the author misses this point – comes in lots of different forms. We have financial power. We have power of capital. We have the power that comes with social position or privilege. And we have power that comes from Eskom.

So, if you are a poor, homeless white person who cannot get a job and will in all likelihood die in the streets, you cannot be racist when you call someone a black baboon because you have no power.

If you are really broke and get kicked out of university because your parents can’t afford it, this means you lack academic, social and capital power. So if you get drunk and vent on Facebook like that oke at Cape Peninsula University of Technology in 2012, it can’t be racist.

And when I’m sitting at home and the light go out, well that’s an inequality in the power relations between me and Eskom. So when if I (underpaid guest writer who still hasn’t gotten a wage increase - Ed’s note: nice try, bro) loudly exclaim that Tshediso Matona (millionaire black CEO of the state provider) is a useless braindead chimpanzee, it can’t be racism.

While black people may be offended or be made to feel uncomfortable, in this case, they cannot experience racism. Like the esteemed author said “racism and power cannot be divorced from one another” – and just by playing with one or two words, we can clearly see how this drastically affects this global, human phenomenon.

I wish I could explore this topic more and prove to you why foreigners can’t experience xenophobia and that South Africans can’t be xenophobic, but I have a word limit to consider. Perhaps next time.

The Constitution “violently preserves the status quo”

I’m going on a bit here, so I’ll keep it short: I agree.

That widely reviled and hateful document, which was brought into effect in 1994 with the transition to democracy, is a pestilence on our people and a plague on our civilisation. It claims to uphold and enshrine the most fundamental and basic rights every human deserves, like freedom from discrimination, a right to education, the right to safety, the right to human dignity, the right to vote, but these are just a clever disguise for its evil-sowing, hatemongering lies.

It’s so called rights are the reason we are living in this modern dystopia. The right to vote got us Jacob Zuma. This violently preserves the status quo of a country where we suffer daily corruption and theft.

What about the so-called “right to education” – look at all the idiots I’m surrounded by. Having basic education made them this way. Without it, they would be here, saying dumb things at my hard-earned tax dollars. And the freedom of assembly to picket and protest? This is the reason we have so many violent, street-trashing, poo-flinging protests. If we could tear up this document, we’d never have another violent march again.

Let’s not even talk about the Freedom of speech – people can just say whatever they want and are allowed to disagree with you. It makes me sick that we live in a society where people are allowed to say what they want, or even write these Protest organisation releases that make us so angry in the first place. If we could get rid of the Constitution, I'm sure South Africa would be restored to its rightless former glory or peace and prosperity. You remember those days, don't you?

Johan is a guest columnist at Muse and Abuse. Widely renowned for his non-nonsense approach to controversial topics, Johan shines a blinding light of truth on subjects like the hideous scourge of immigration, why white people should vote ANC, why Blackface isn't the real racist problem in SA, and how Black Privilege is an ugly truth that no one wants to admit. He also thinks gay marriage should have been outlawed years ago.

Black privilege: South Africa’s dark secret

We’ve all heard about white privilege – but how many of us know about how black people unfairly benefit from their skin colour? Guest Writer Johan Van Eksteen shines a light of truth on this phenomenon that many will refuse to admit exists.

My fellow South Africans, there is a troubling part of our society that none of us ever acknowledge or talk about. Right at the middle of the centre of our country’s core, there is a phenomenon that many will try to tell you is “absurd” or “totally misinformed and misguided” to talk about.

Black Privilege.

Now, we’ve all heard about White Privilege. It’s boring. It’s old. It’s not even worth talking about any more. It doesn’t even exist – some people say that my skin colour gives me unearned benefits and privileges. But this just isn’t true. Every day when I came into work at my father’s company (this was just after I’d finally finished my degree after switching courses three times at UCT and I’d turned down several other job offers and taken up my dad’s offer) my pa would tell me “Johan, lots of people will think you’re going to become the General Manager here in three years’ time because you’re my son, or because you’re white, or even both.”

I knew then that I had to work extra hard to make sure my rightful place wasn’t given to some random. My whiteness disadvantaged me. Every day, I set the alarm on my iPhone 6 half an hour earlier. Every day, I ate low-fat organic yoghurt with a quick smoothie when everyone else was having their morning fry-up. Every day, I made sure I was out my four-bedroom apartment and in my Audi in N7 traffic before everyone else. Every day I had to make it look like I was working harder than everyone else, even when I wasn’t.

It was exhausting. It was difficult.

But I did it. I managed to excel despite my skin colour.

But Universities and so-called “academic thinkers” will never admit this simple truth to you: there are certain unspoken social and economic privileges that black people get and white people don’t just because the system favours black skin.

Ready to have your mind blown?

#1: Black people can make black people jokes

Let’s look at so-called “comedians” like Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock. If they make jokes about black people it’s “hilarious”. But if I tell a real knee-slapper about Phineas walking into a bar and asking for a job, it’s “racist” and “disgusting”.

I’ve spoken about this hypocrisy before.

It’s “racist as hell” when I apply half a tin of Kiwi shoe polish onto my cheeks and put on a pair of overalls, but when little boys paint their faces in disgusting ‘whiteface’, it’s “their culture” and a “Xhosa rite of passage to finally becoming a man”.

Hell, I can’t even use the word ‘n*****r’. I can’t even say it aloud, or even explain to you what word that is that I’m hiding behind stars. I have to say, like, “the N-word”. I can’t tell you how oppressive it is to have to go “uh” or “mmm” or make a strange bleeping noise during my favourite N****rs With Attitude song.

#2: Black people get jobs easily

This is the ugliest part of it. If I want to get a job, I have to work hard for years and years at a high-grade private school and with my private weekend tutors so that I can get a good chance to get into UCT or another tertiary institute. Then, I have to ask my parents for tens of thousands of Rands just to get my Master’s degree and then, even after all this, I still have to put in at least two years, bare minimum, at my father’s company just to make it onto the Board of Directors as a lowly Chief Manager of National Divisions' Procurement.

But look at our President or a lot of politicians. They didn’t get their Matric, and some of them even failed Woodwork, and they’re all employed.

“Oh, Johan,” I hear you rascal ‘intellectuals’ and ‘academics’ retort, “this is aimed at addressing the inequalities of the past. Black people used to suffer disadvantage because of their skin colour, so it’s an attempt at social justice.” And I reply: thank you for proving my point. You’re saying they get jobs because they are black. Checkmate.

#3: Black people get social benefits

Today, all across South Africa, thousands of black and coloured people have access to government RDP housing, government healthcare, and unemployment benefits. But just because most white people I know have homes and jobs and money and health insurance, does that mean that they should suffer this ugly system of reverse racism? Whatever happened to the vision of true equality that Nelson Mandela had for us all? If I want Comprehensive International Platinum membership Full Cover with Cashback guarantee after six years and no limits of hospital or doctor choice, I have to pay thousands of Rands for it. This is disgusting. I believe in equal opportunities for all, regardless of your skin colour or how many thousands of rand you earn per month.

#4: Black people get automatic sympathy

We all know that our local media is a sick-lie-birthing nest of incestuous, revolting snakes writing in pools of their own corrupt, foetid shit, but what we never talk about is how much it prefers stories about black people. Every time there’s a shooting or tragedy or political scandal involving black people, you’ll guarantee that they’ll have front page coverage every single time without fail. But if a white guy commits a crime, for him to get attention he has to shoot his model girlfriend and be handicapped - and even then, all he gets his is own channel on DSTV.

Where is the extensive coverage of the billions of white lives lost just this year alone in farm murders in South Africa? Where was the six-page analysis of beloved artists like Steve Hofmeyr having their constitutionally-enshrined Freedom of Speech violated on Twitter?

This might sound like I’m repeating myself, but if a black person says a white oke called him a K-bomb (oh look! Another word white people arent’ allowed to use! Doesn’t this censorship make you feel sick?!) everyone will believe him, but if I say that a Muslim oke is going to blow up a plane, or a Romanian is going to steal my job, or that suspicious black guy in my gated community is doing reconnaissance to rob me blind, it’s “racial stereotyping” and “terribly racist”.

#5: Black people get justice

Every day we see scores of black families see justice. People who rob them or murder their family members are thrown straight in jail, often without any real trouble or controversy or even a lawyer to play lawyer tricks. That's true justice.

But where was the justice for Reeva Steenkamp’s family? You see how the system favours giving speedy, same-day justice to black families, but not to white families.

I’m going to stop now, but I think we can all agree that I’ve only revealed the head of the ugly three-kilometre snake. I look forward to the day that we all receive true equality – black or white. Previously Disadvantaged or Currently Disadvantaged.

If you want to read how to reach this futuristic utopia, perhaps you, too, should vote ANC, like me.

Thank you, Eskom

A thank you letter to Eskom, from yours truly.

And here is a link to the story mentioned in the text.

Why Blackface is okay: the plague of reverse racism

A guest post by Johan Van Eksteen
Head of Race Studies and Representation at the International Institute of Social Sciences

We’ve seen it again and again: a controversy that crops up its ugly head every few months, and I think that, as a whole, we can all agree that it’s time to put this ‘Blackface’ nonsense into context and address the core issues at the heart of the centre in this topic’s middle.

Blackface. What is it? Harmless students having fun? Leon Schuster making us laugh our asses off? An insulting spit-in-the-face of black people drawing on a history of discrimination and marginalisation? Perhaps we’ll never know.

But what we can know, is that black people are also guilty.

Recently, in my travels across the harsh, bleak blogosphere, I came across a so-called ‘tradition’. A tradition that sickens me. A tradition that makes me want to take my size-13 veltschoen and throw them out the window the way the government it throwing this blerrie country out the window.

Every year, wherever you go in the country, there is a special Xhosa ritual where black people mock white people. They dress up in blankets and robes – perhaps trying to poke fun at our tendency to blanket our emotions and opinions in a swaddle of self-censorship and guilt – and paint their faces white.

It’s disgusting.

After thousands of years of oppression, misunderstanding and marginalisation, to the point where we whites as the people who were the kings of this land can’t even get a job unless it’s in a city or a village or a town or in our dad’s garage or even in an apprenticeship anywhere in the country through any of the numerous employment options afforded to us through privileged education, we have to face this 'whiteface' ridicule. What are parents teaching their children? That it’s funny or a part of their so-called “heritage” to paint their faces white and mock at least six years’ worth of white discrimination?

It gets worse.

Oh yes, these boys (sometimes as young as sixteen or even younger!) will do this for a whole month! And they’ll do it without having access to food or water – perhaps a sign that this hateful culture wants us, white people, to starve and die of dehydration, with no sustenance or help around us. And as one final kick-in-the-ribs to white people, they then circumcise the boys. Are they trying to make fun of our tiny, limp, quiescent penises? How dare they?!

I am sick and tired of this hypocrisy. A few university students dress up as a maid and the whole world goes bananas. You know, they didn’t even look like black maids, that’s the worst thing. I myself have three black maids – one for each house I own – and eight garden boys. People are jumping to baseless conclusions.

Let us also look at the media. Yes, it’s also guilty. Have you ever heard of a man called Dave Chappelle? No? Okay, what about the Wayan Brothers?

These sick “actors” go around dressing up as white people, and no one says anything. Not a word. Not even a single angry tweet or page-three report in the Mail & Guardian. Yes, I know lots of people will immediately go to the tired and over-flogged horse of “oh, but Leon Schuster” – but at least Schuster is funny. Look at how funny he is. Funny. Laugh. How many movies has he made? Dozens. They’re funny. But where do we draw the line?

This is where the debate gets even worse. There are companies out there who sell women white face powder. Is it okay for women to insult white women by creating such horrific and disgusting caricatures of Western, white and idealised notions of beauty by covering their faces in an insulting and symbolic ‘vok jou’ to white skin?

I don’t think so.

The truth, ladies and gentlemen, is that black people have been guilty of cultural appropriation for years. Does the media say anything? No, it’s all “Miley Cyrus” this, and “Die Antwoorde” that, and “yada yada Iggy Azalea”.

But every time Kanye West spends a million dollars, do people ask whether he isn’t taking advantage of white peoples’ culture of being rich? Every time a black person gets a degree or an education, how come no one accuses them of stealing our rich heritage of having easy access to higher-quality knowledge and self-improvement?

It gets worse. Yes, I know you’re all vomiting and retching emptily now in dismay, but I’ve almost finished revealing to you the festering, grotesque mess of this media and society conspiracy to its deepest, ugliest depths.

They appropriate our religion and our culture: the most important things to us. When we brought printing presses here, did we ask them politely to become Christians? Of course not! Did we ask them to take our names in place of their own names, choosing “Charles”, “George”, “Peter” and even “Nelson”, over… um… lots of X’s and Q’s? No. We didn’t.

What is missing in this debate are sane, rational thinkers: leaders of clarity and well-reasoned logic who can debunk these myths one at a time. Voice who will define this generation’s truth and perspicacity. Voices like Steve Hofmeyr.

Next time we inevitably see a Stellenbosch University student do this, let us remember: pots can’t call kettles black.

Or white.

Pics: Pic 1 of two boys: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/south_africa_faces/images/primary/Xhosa.jpg
Pic two of one kid: http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--C2S-D7Gl--/18erpzhk5qiamjpg.jpg
Dave Chappelle: http://www.candidtam.com/WP/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/good-ol-chapelle.png
Leon Schuster: youtube.com
White chicks: http://www.jackasscritics.com/images/movies/white_chicks_01.jpg

“Why is the teaching assistant white?” and other burning questions

A guest post by Emilia d’Orvey, final-year Collège student*

My dear 3^ième Class of the three Collèges Lycée Générals in Toulouse who have been caught up in this confusing furore, I think it’s about time we addressed the elephant in the room. Well, it’s not an elephant, but he probably rides one to school, so I think the comparison is warranted.

Ever since last week, I think we can all agree that our normal English classes have been utterly upset by the arrival of a confounding guest. A guest who just goes against all expectations. A guest who may or may not be a fraud.

”If he comes from Africa, then why is he white?”

We all have these questions, don’t we? I mean, come on. If he really is from South Africa, then why is he white? Only black people come from Africa, that much is certain. And yes, he may explain to us (in painfully slow and patronising English, often accentuating his accent – I mean, isn’t it really racist to talk to second-language speakers reeeeaaaalllllyyy ssssllloooowwwllyy?) using endless statistics that there *are* white people in South Africa, over 6 million of them, but I think we all know that statistics are a lie. In fact, 75.3245% of statistics are made up on the spot to make your hashed argument seem believable or well-informed.

The assistant. Who is he? Why is he white?
We need answers.

There are other burning questions, too. Meaningful questions that just need to be answered. Does he speak French? I mean, really? Can he say some words in French? And why does he come here? How tall is he? Is he married? Does he have children? Is he really 23 years old? What kinds of animals are there in Souws’Africa? Does he like football? Does he like France? Has he ever touched Nelson Mandela? Until we get these answers, none of us will rest easy.

And if he is supposed to be a Cultural Artifact to be wheeled out at every lesson to be the voice, face, and sole representative of the entirety of South African culture, then why is he trying to complicate things? Already, he is trying to destroy established facts about South Africa that we know to be true. Nelson Mandela ended Apartheid singlehandedly. Animals roam the streets. Crime is terrible everywhere. Worse than this, he now tells us that not all South Africans are the same. 11 official languages? Dozens of different ethnic groups with complex histories and roots stretching back thousands of years across the subcontinent, Africa and the world? What madness is this?

If he really is who he says he is, then I issue this challenge: give us these answers. Hopefully, he will hear this and deliver unto us the knowledge that is necessary for the continuation of our normal lives. He is here for the rest of the school year (he says their schools start in January, run from 7:45am until the late evening, have obligatory sports AND and are divided into separate boy/girl institutes with their own obligatory uniforms!!!). Perhaps, in time, he may deliver these answers. However, my fellow étudiants, I think he may just leave us with even more questions.

Questions like “do you want a cigarette?” when we’re outside the school gates.

*Muse and Abuse would like to thank resident translator Matthew de Klerk for garbling the ultimately superior and far more beautiful language of French and turning it into the ugly, ear-splitting drone of beastial English. Yeah. Thanks a lot.

Dear Black Bloggers (A Response to Dear White South Africans)

Emotion can be a dangerous thing. Sure, anger can lend to our words and actions a passionate intensity that enables a vociferous, unbidden expression of what we’re feeling at the time, but it also brings with it a dangerous cloud of obscurity to our thoughts, a choking fog that surmounts clarity and seeps in at the cracks of our rhetoric and renders it illogical, irrational.

Which is why when I read a Facebook-furore piece yesterday entitled “Dear White South Africans” , I was unsurprised to see what can only be described as dangerous, illogical generalisations at play in the form of that ever-emotional issue, race.

The context for this article was the silly Braai Day thing that happens to override Heritage Day once a year. Readers who have been on this site before will know my thoughts on such a matter – I feel that Braai Day, a capitalist, consumerist and shallow hijacking of a public holiday - distracts us from remembering our unique history.

Now then, to the issue at hand: it would be easy to call Mazwai’s blog post a baseless, moronic, stereotyping, hate-mongering mess of oversimplified sweeping generalisations and unfounded accusations, but in lieu of an ad hominem attack, I feel it is better to debunk the article on its own merits and bases.

First of all, postulation on others’ original heritages and countries of origin is meaningless, really, in this scope of argument. If we look back far enough (as the Nando’s advert so wonderfully pointed out) we can see that ‘Afrika’ doesn’t really belong to anyone (or at least, that Africans are just as guilty of colonisation over the Khoi San as the ‘whites’), and if it does, it probably belongs to the common ancestor who preceded Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus and our modern species. History, wars, civil unrest and the general passage of time can have monumental effects on ‘countries’ you supposedly come from. What about in the early 1800’s, when Germany and Poland were not real states, divided and shared between other nations? Indeed, our origins - black, white, whatever - are a subject of far more complexity and depth than a simplistic Ancient Nation Origin. As another blogger put it "Calling me one of the children of Hitler is like calling you a child of Charles Taylor, this is simply wrong". If it is written in On The Origin Of the Species that we all probably came from the Ocean, then does that mean we should all fuck off back into the Atlantic?

The idea of having multiple contrasting heritages is also not made on logical ground. Yes, technically white people may or may not come from countries where they were the “children” (not literally, obviously) of “Elizabeth, Hitler, Bismarck”, but what of those living in the diaspora, those who were born in countries outside their so-called “homes”? I am ineligible for citizenship in my “homelands” Scotland, France and Britain (so much for being the son of Napolean and Louis XI, right?), was born in Zimbabwe but have South African citizenship – how then, does my belonging here be erased because a bunch of unrelated humans came before me? In the same light, there are many aspects of these ‘bad’ legacies that can be celebrated: Nazis pioneered rocket engines, Uganda wants to kill gays***, and the industrial revolution was thanks mostly to the Scottish people. Any Heritage comes with good and bad: if you chose to celebrate Shaka Zulu’s legacy, you would also have to accept his dark, violent, warmongering side instead of just sanitising his historical image as a faultless black Jesus.

The claim that we come from a legacy of “stealing lands and making people slaves” is also a knee-jerk red herring. Slaves have been owned by many cultures and peoples stemming back thousands of years, including Biblical and African cultures. Pots cannot really call kettles black. In the same way, many African as well as Western cultures extended their lands and kingdoms through military campaigns, violence, war and slavery. Again, you cannot blame solely whites for these specific human evils.

What, also, is the basis for saying that white people have issues centred on their “SELF importance”? According to whom, to what data, what empirical research? Without a proper basis of fact to make such an allegation, it becomes mere conjecture, a subjective anecdotal posturing that is as weasel-wording-y as “scientists believe” or “they say”.

Similar easy debunking can be applied to the claims “This confuses me because you did not build your own empires, we built them for you”, “You did not raise you own children, we did that for you” and “You did not stand up when the injustices of Apartheid were happening, we stood up for ourselves”. This, again unfounded, baseless, claim is nothing short of an opinion. Which empires? How do you term ‘build’? Many whites raised their own children, just as many whites stood against apartheid, which did not benefit all whites equally (hence white women being included in BEE legislation). If we look into white struggle contributions, you cannot say that any one people put an end to it. The downfall of Apartheid was a complex and sophisticated convalescence of many wide influences and factors. Saying white people were only the perpetrators of Apartheid and that only Africans ended it carries with it a magnitude of imbecility that defies description. In the same way, did not Afrikaaners fight during the Boer War to ensure that British Rule ended? You cannot just whitewash (blackwash?) history.

“You’ve been too damn arrogant to learn the language” – sadly, this is a whole messy debate in and of itself. I myself learnt French and chiShona in school, but having been kicked out of Zimbabwe and now working in France, I would say that not learning the language has been a benefit. Again, learning a language must be something that is decided on relative merits. There are many reasons why learning another language might not be done: one of these is that many vernacular languages lack the grammatical complexity to be university instructional languages – how, for example, would one learn quantum physics or advanced organic chemistry in isiXhosa? And there are over 250 dialects in DRC alone, with RSA having 11 official languages – if you learn seven of them, are you not still being exclusive? Additionally, saying “with all due respect” means that technically you cannot follow up by being hugely disrespectful. But then, if you understood English, you’d understand paradox, contradiction, or oxymoron.

I would say that I have heard some white folk dumb down their English when speaking to black people, and I would agree that this behaviour is patronising and insulting. However, generalising that all “you white people” do this is, again, empirically unfounded. Anecdotal evidence is not the rule. Following on from this, who says it’s “ignorance”, “arrogance” or “a desire to be asked to go back to your lands” that whites disrespect Heritage Day? And why is it specifically YOUR (I take it the author here means “belonging to Africans”) Heritage Day? The history of its development clearly shows that it was meant to be a celebration of Heritage (and be definition that means all peoples, cultures and traditions in South Africa, not just the ones you acknowledge or deem more important). Braai Day is stupid, yes, and it warped Heritage Day just in the same way Valentine’s Day, Easter, Christmas and a whole host of other public holidays have been hijacked. Have we not seen Youth Day devolve into just a day off school to nurse hangovers? (This is a generalised statement, I admit). But if the esteemed author had read any of the interviews done in the course of the Heritage Day controversies, she would know that the original creator of the day had only the best intentions, but now kind of regrets the whole thing. Besides, who are you to tell people what aspects of culture are best and how or what we should celebrate on this day? It is exactly a South African celebration, which is why braaiing is perfectly fine.

As a (white) someone who got “chased off the land […] in a ‘Zimbabwe situation’”, I would say that the Zimbabwe Land Reforms were not as simplistic and puerile as white people being arrogant. A whole host of political and racist motives moved the land, starting with the failed move to change the Constitution in the referendum of 2001 and demonstrations by old Chimurenga War Veterans. Again, the author simply has not done any research or reading into the claims she makes, preferring the easy, knee-irrationality that is designed only to sow hatred and garner pageviews and perhaps advertising revenue.

In short conclusion, this article is nothing but a condescending, patronising, baseless bunch of unfounded opinions and childish assumptions that lead up to grotesque mess of hatemongering drivel. The author should, in future, not be so clinically myopic or as viciously race-hate hungry.

Notes: A reader corrected me - the Referendum was in 2000. Also, the title was intended as a sardonic, ironic rebuttal rather than any racial motive aimed at black bloggers.

*** a reader pointed out the structural ambiguity here: though placed in between two arguable progressive things, my addition of Uganda killing gays is sorely mistaken. I wrote it in a way that was meant to show how, terribly evil, mixed message, or good for all, each culture has a complex history and background that must be taken into account when celebrating it. Let me be clear that I fully believe gay rights should be a global given. I find it absurd to imagine the comparative equal: having to tell society "I am heterosexual" before "being allowed" to say that I love a woman because she is a particularly gender. Thank you for pointing this out, and I apologise for any misunderstanding.

White people to tackle dangerous stereotypes

pic: wikimedia

In response to racial tensions across the globe, white people have banded together to protest against the widespread and dangerous stereotypes associated with their skin colour.

According the newly founded United Movement for Liberation from Unfair and Naughty Generalisations against Us (UMLUNGU), they will be tackling dangerous myths such as "all whites are rich" and "all whites love Woolies, Salmon and UCT".

"White people are also the targets of hateful and hurtful racist rhetoric," said Protest coordinator Skree Manshowt."I for one can tell you that fish makes me physically sick," said a man who was so white he makes Casper the Ghost look like a black hole. "And honestly, Woolies is just overrated and repackaged food items resold in nice plastic and so on at a much higher price. I actually shop at Checkers like a lot of bla... like a lot of people, some of whom are my closest friends."

Many other respondents agreed.

"All my friends look at me and think I have three iPods, a huge house, and a hot sister," said Bradley Conners. "But these baseless prejudices couldn't be further from the truth! We have a small three-bedroom flat in Seapoint, I only have an iPod Mini, and my sister is like, only a 6.3."

The protest movement's work, which draws on the work of famous identity and representation theorists such as Stuart Hall, Chris Barker, Michael Banton and Richard Dyer, says that many stereotypes have to be understood by their corollaries.

"When you say that black people are criminals, or are lazy, you have to understand via oppositional construction the very hurtful, baseless and dangerous things these say about whites," said Race, Identity and Social Change lecturer at Rhodes University Prince Jeanloo.

The organisers of the movement have agreed

"Many studies have shown that almost 1% of prison convictions in this country are of white people. We suffer gross racial discrimination in that we are given fair trials and access to good lawyers just because of our skin colour," said the movement's Chief of Staff Reyp Rezentayshun. "Also, I don't know if you've ever met a BA kid at Rhodes. Work isn't exactly their middle name.”

The movement's protest has been met with much support from universities and media firms.

"We think this is a great opportunity to shed light on a scarce topic," said CEO of media24 Tranz Mitt. "After all, it's not like we have too many white people on TV."