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.

"Dream of free education finally realised” says protester standing in university ruins

Astounding student victory celebrations light up radioactive crater where university halls and lecture venues once stood

Celebrations are rocking the UCT ruins today, after protesters and students announced the realisation of their dream of free university education for all. According to eyewitnesses on the ground, protesters have been flocking to the desolate lecture buildings and art-stripped residences to celebrate the stunning achievement.

“Finally we will get the education we all fought so hard for,’ said one student speaking from the crumbled smoking ruins of the UCT admin building. “Once upon a time, these halls teemed with students who paid to receive one of the finest educations in the entire continent. Those days are over.”

The student, 19-year-old sociology major Ray Kingball, explained why this single goal was so important.

“Accessible education is something everyone needs,” he explained. “There is nothing we wouldn’t do in our campus protests to realise that dream. Torch busses; demolish the residences; hell, even burn down the library: that’s how serious we are about winning this fight for a quality education for all and a better tomorrow.”

And despite public outcry over their methods, student protest leaders have echoed Kingball’s sentiments.

“Some people say ‘but don't the destruction of valuable resources and infrastructure and the defacement of buildings actively contribute to the already awful education crisis in South Africa’, but they don’t get it,” said student activist and bonfire enthusiast Bernadette Nophies. “Only violence solves these issues – history has shown us that Martin Luther King and Mandela had to destroy everything and enact daily acts of aggression and violence to enact sweeping changes to their country’s oppressive systems.”

“I mean, how could anyone forget the 80s and 90s when all those gay people tore down crosses, burn bibles by the dozen and torched churches so that they could have equal access to marriage?”

“We will not stand this oppressive violent system anymore,” she said, tossing a petrol bomb into the Vice Chancellor’s office. “Violence should be destroyed with extreme prejudice.”

Despite yearly cuts to funding and subsidies, as well as government pressure sto continue yearly growth at 10% per annum, VC’s and university officials are assureing students that the money situation should not even be thought of.

“Yes, everyone’s asking how we’ll ever be able to pay for journal subscriptions, upkeep and maintenance, proposed expansions to meet growing student numbers, wages and salaries for staff and lecturers, and still also give out research grants, bursaries and scholarship opportunities as well as financial assistance, but students shouldn’t worry,” said the new VC in charge, Eric Sanders. “We’ve heaped some fertilizer onto the campus money tree, and the campus money printing press has had its dial turned up to 11, so it should all be good.”

Students have gathered at the Main Admin Block (pictured)
to celebrate their stunning achievement. 

However, students remain opposed to the movement.

“Violence is laaike never the answer, charna,” said TUKS BA Fingerpainting student and rugby spectator Ekvil Moerem, “It doesn’t matter if it’s educations, or paintings, or busts of historically progressive figures – you know, anything what isn’t rugby. What they need to learn is that Nothing will ever be resolved by devolving into violence and destruction.”

And it’s a lesson Moerem believes they will learn.

“Even if we – or the police – need to beat that lesson into them.”

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?”

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.

UCT Press Release: Rhodes Statue will be demolished

UCT makes its final decision on the controversial matter of the Cecil John Rhodes statue.

Text reads:

Date: 24 March 2015

Alumni, colleagues, and fellow students,

By now you’re all aware of the heated and bitter debate happening on social media and on campus concerning the controversial Cecil John Rhodes memorial statue located on the Jammie stairs. Since the furore kicked off, strong public pressure has mounted on UCT to take a decision on what to do with this statue, this painful reminder of our imperfect past.

And, having listened to the all the rational arguments, heartfelt submissions, ad hominem spiteful tweets, disingenuous oversimplifications and absurd Hitler comparisons on both sides of this debate, we’re pleased to announce that we’ve come to a decision.

The statue will fall.

Of course, this is only the first step in a long, long journey of progressive change to combat the institutional racism and elitism that, unlike that blonde girl you dated last year, you can’t escape even if you take the long way around campus to the Politics department.

Many ask us, “CRS, what kinds of socially progressive programs will you put into place to ensure that postive change and justice is rooted into our institution’s core?”. Many email me asking, “Eric, what sorts of scholarships and funding programs for disenfranchised youth will you source and offer to ensure that this protest isn’t just a skin-deep, feel-good, masturbatory paintjob?”

And to you I say, there is still so much work to be done before we can consider such trivialities.

Look at the Parliament buildings in Cape Town. Look at the Union buildings in Pretoria. Look all around you – how can we possibly introduce institutional transformative measures when there are still so many monuments to be torn down and free us from the oppressive weight of mental violence?

How could we possibly instigate better equal employment measures, or introduce student funding and financial aid schemes for students from a disadvantaged background if all the buddies of Cecil Steel-eyes – like Jan Smuts - glaring down at downtrodden South Africans from their places of honour?

How could we create new student scholarship opportunities or education programs aimed at including unheard authors and thinkers in our academic discourse if we’re reminded at every turn how racist everyone except us is?

And let us gaze turn overseas. What about The Pyramids of Giza? Ofttimes shrouded in a false veil of grandeur, these are nothing more than death relics that represent a terrible and oppressive age of slavery and horror. And it doesn’t stop there: we look at Mount Rushmoore, The Eiffel Tower, Great Wall of China, The Cistine Chapel, Notre Dame, Woolworths, and even the Great railroads of the United States. Time and time again, where most see just buildings, we see the blood-soaked bodies of the millions whose bones have served as cement and toothpicks.

Until these artefacts are demolished, how can we call the world truly equal and inclusive?

This is just the beginning of the program, however.

Next, we’ll ban religion, destroy every mosque, church and place of worship. After all, almost every religion is built on a disgusting history of slavery, genocide, executions, state-sanctioned torture, and hatred, not to mention Holy Crusades that were little more than giant ethnical cleansings, rampant accusations of paedophilia, extremist terror attacks and brutal beheadings.

Then we’ll destroy all art, all books. These are nothing more than the products of oppressive heritages. Every word and sentence, every brush stroke or musical chord, is a disgusting representation of the systems that oppressed and discriminated millions.

Then we’ll behead every person whose family tree is fertilised with the blood and watered with the sweat of the oppressed.

Then, because humanity itself has destroyed and forced into extinction countless species on this planet, and because our daily existence is at the cost of the lives and freedom of millions of creatures and fellow humans, we’ll mass murder the entire human population, finally ridding our beautiful world of all reminders of how terrible history is.

Some have said to us, “but Eric, there is a nuanced middleground in between these two dichotomous extremes that doesn’t require such an extremist stance on the matter, a calmer, more considered halfway house where we can introduce more level-headed considered programs and actions that will contribute to true social justice instead of sowing dissent by exacerbating entrenched butthurt”. And to this we say, “racism, in any form, requires an extreme response.”

Finally, in this beautiful utopian world where we can pursue academic excellence free from the horrifying realities of the past, we can turn our attention to incorporating progressive changes to the institutional policies and politics of our esteemed university.

Yours in solidarity,

Eric Jeffries

CRS President 2015

Internet commenters unsure which racial epithet to use

'Uncle Tom Sell-out, or arrogant whitey?', ponder debate enthusiasts

Following a comment posted ten minutes ago online concerning the controversial issue of the University of Cape Town's Cecil John Rhodes memorial statue, online commenters, social media activists, and digital bigots on both sides of the debate have told reporters they are still unsure which utterly unnecessary, hurtful racist slur to bash into their well-worn keyboards.

Citing the "ambiguous profile picture" of the Facebook user in question and touching on her "scant profile information", internet users across South Africa are still uncertain whether to reply to her call for a "return to calm and considerate debate free from ridiculous racist slurs, mockery, ad hominem attacks and rhetoric fallacies" with a "STFU you stupid and arrogant white crybaby upholding a legacy of oppression" or a "OMG look at this sellout counterrevolutionary Uncle Tom brainwashed into defending white privilege."

"When you click on the thumbnail of the post next to this peaceful, non-toxic plea to her fellow citizens that we treat each other with the respect and dignity that we all, as human beings, deserve, all we can see is a group shot with four girls of a varying range of skin colours," said 1st-year politics student and fiercely involved social media RhodesMustFall debater, Vlei Mwar.

"So, as of this moment, we can't be sure which form of cyber bullying and utterly disrespectful slander to employ. I mean, at this stage we don't know if she's white or black, so how are we supposed to pick which racially charged epithet to use in scorning her personal, subjective stance on the matter?"

"I mean, we could just call her a 'fucking stupid bitch' who should 'go and educate herself' and 'read a book about the history of this before you bring your dumb comments' - you know, a general, non-racial smear that is easily applied to people of any race, religion or creed online," explained Mwar, "but when it comes to debates as important as this, we think that if we're not going to be considerate, thoughtful and critically engaged in the current discourse, we should at least apply that high-level logic-based rational thinking to our short-sighted, debate-sullying engagements with other people."

However, not all internauts agree, with one side of the camp calling for a calm and respectful waiting period before heaping ridicule and abuse on her and likening her to something that should be universally despised and ostracised.

"We're not mindless animals," said Rashad Homnem. "I mean, why in the world would anyone in this nationally-watched debate sully the importance of mature, respectful discourse with ridiculous things like making over-simplistic comparisons between two unconnected, vastly dissimilar people?'

"Besides," added Homnem, "even if someone doesn't tip us off, what's not being able to call one out of hundreds of people a 'fucking stupid blind moron who should shut the fuck up because you don't know what you're talking about'? I'm pretty sure we can let this one slide."

Muse and Abuse would like to get this debate going by preemptively calling you all massive festering cockworms.

The Rhodes Statue : what’s the big stink?

Guest writer Johan Van Eksteen braves the internet once more to bring us another serving of truth. Today’s topic on the menu: the Cecil John Rhodes statue at UCT. Should it be removed?

Friends, I want to be clear about one thing: when I saw this story pop up in my newsfeed, I had to take a step back, and think logically. You know, emotion is a powerful thing. Ya, sometimes when you’re angry it can be a good thing, like, if you clearly asked for Peppersteak sauce and the chick brings you Monkeygland; but we can’t forget that our emotions can also blind us.

Not literally though. You’d need extensive corneal damage for that to happen, for example from staring at the sun, or accidentally mistaking that bottle of Hydrogen peroxide for the similar bottle of contact lens solution you keep on the same shelf for some reason, or even just from reading the stupid comments on my wall about this story.

And how much emotion there was! It was a real hotpot debate; it mixed all the well-loved elements of many famous South African ‘debates’: Race, history, apartheid, race, privilege, race, racial privilege, politics and race.

So I had to take a few days to think. To let the air clear: not just because I wanted to talk sense to you guys, but also because that kak stank to high heaven, and it needed a day or two for the cleaning staff to get the air on the Jammie stairs breathable once more.

And what I think I’ve decided is that it’s not time to break out the sledgehammers just yet.

It looks nice

So before we ask ourselves what position the inevitable replacement Nelson Mandela statue should be in, we need to ask ourselves: what is this statue all about?

First of all, the statue is "flippen’ kiff" as my son would probably say. Just look at it. I don’t care what people say about his “legacy of horror” and his “merry band of genocidal racist maniac henchmen”, just look at that bronze and brass, set in magnificent foreboding concrete. Look at the eternal expression etched into his face. That’s a face that means business - exactly the kind of person we want our Uni kids to be, instead of flippen’ spending my flippen’ money getting drunk all the time and pretending it’s “because of tuition and expensive textbooks”.

If we ignore what the story books say and don’t think “shit ya this oke was pretty bad”, it’s just a statue.

Change is expensive

Secondly, demolishing or breaking down the statue will be expensive, even if we use the cheapest low-class labour operating without Union protection. Hell, even if we put together a workgang of terrified, easy-to-control illegal immigrants from Zimbabwe and Malawi who won't say boo to a goose for fear of being deported back to their respective hellholes and tell them "enda lapa na breaki lo statue faga naconcrete lapaside", we’re still looking at spending thousands of Rands that could be better spend elsewhere. Like on funding a cool society that throws cool parties.

I myself went to university, and I can tell you that my knowledge and respect for Hellenic Culture and the great legacy of the Greek people grew and grew with every shot of Zorba and each toga party. Do we want to deny our children this opportunity?

Should we ‘photoshop’ History?

Like it or not, Rhodes was a part of our history. I can admit, it would be nice to remove all painful reminders of our past – just like how I wish I could erase my ex-wife’s Facebook profile, or the sms notifications I get from people commenting on stories like this - but painful reminders of our harsh past can make us better people. I remember once I beheaded a beloved family pet using a rusty panga, and I can tell you that the awful dreams mean I probably won't do it to Fido 2.0. Unless he also eats my entire bag of biltong and there's nothing in the fridge by carrotsticks.

But if we do decide Rhodes Must Fall - if we start with this one statue - who knows how far this will go? Ya, lots of people like to pretend that we don’t have to pick between two polarised, binary extreme opposites – that there’s space for a nuanced middleground between the two sides – but we all know that’s a lie.

What’s to stop okes smashing sculptures of past presidents? What will stop them rioting en masse and utterly demolishing the Union Buildings, the Parliamentary buildings, or even beheading someone who shares a surname with any of these notorious historical figures?

And what about the pictures of our esteemed President hanging in every government building? Has there ever been so vivid a daily reminder of how we are less than garbage, a populace of taxpaying buffoons who are subjected to a hateful regime on a daily basis? What about those bloody liberals polluting our country and my Twitter feed? Why do we let these slide; where do we draw the line?

In any case, removing the statue is totally unnecessary – if you want our children to grow up in a South Africa free of reminders of our painful past and our difficult, divided society, well, Zuma and Motshekga are doing a bang-up job by making History books and a decent education a thing of the past. We're entering a bright future where our children won't even know who these people are.

Besides, I think we can all admit: photoshop is hard.

However, I’d be an idiot not to admit that the protestors had some great points. I was reading a survey done by UCT recently, and they found that by simply knocking down this one statue we can end all racism and hatred everywhere. In the past, in places like Iraq and Ukraine, simply knocking down a statue has led to an immediate increase in democracy and peace.

What the protestors did was not only make me ask myself hard questions about the things I don’t like in society, they also gave me the means to get tonnes of media coverage and protest around it. In fact, just this morning I had a huge breakfast, and for lunch I had the Double-cheese-Zinger Double-Down hot-wing combo with extra hot sauce at KFC, and I’m cooking up a pretty huge protest against Woolworths as we speak.

But friends, doesn’t this make you think how it could all escalate out of control? Ya, I know some people think that it’s a worrying sign that it took so extreme a form of protest just to get mentioned somewhere other than the UCT twitter community, that it's a disconcerting indication of how marginalised views can be ignored by mainstream media unless extreme measures are taken - but once throwing poo at something goes out of fashion, what next?

I live in constant fear of what the next step up from “giant bucket of diarrhoea” is. Perhaps the next time we see Mr Maxwele in the news he will be voiding his past three meals though every possible orifice, simultaneously crapping, vomiting, urinating and ejaculating all over the stony, oppressive artefacts of white arrogance.

In conclusion, I think what I’m trying to say is that it’s easy to understand why everyone gets so upset. These are serious topics we're talking about - but like with any other respectful, calm debate on the slow-to-anger, understanding and compassionate Internet, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and we should respect that. It's only right that I treat your wrong opinion with the dignity and consideration that I would give to any other foaming-mouthed vituperative and utterly narrow-minded gibberish-spewing idiot whose opinions make me uncomfortable or force me to ask myself difficult, troubling questions.

But what I can't abide is this childish poo-flinging. I mean, I always thought UCT students liked the smell of their own shit, but in public, on their statues?

Sies. Come now.

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 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.

“I accidentally shat myself” admits Rhodes statue protester

Academics accused of “reading into things too much, bru” after damning confession is heard.

The controversy surrounding the Cecil John Rhodes statue has blown out of all proportion today, after a scathing interview revealed that creator of the political movement and author of the ‘poop incident’ against the heavily debated statue, actually accidentally soiled himself.

“It’s true,” said the clearly distraught Politics student, Maxwell Troespou.

“I was doing the butt-clenching Prairie-dog duckwalk between the Pol and Social Sciences buildings when the attack struck. As I stood there, a puddle of my own filth pooling in my underrods, I thought, ‘oh shit, what now? I’ve gotta get rid of this. Of course there was no bin around, so I dumped it on the closest thing possible.”

And that closest thing just happened to be the statue. With furtive glances left and right, he attempted to quickly stash his ruined briefs.

“I thought the small crevice in his lap would sufficiently conceal my mistake,” he lamented. Alas this is where his statue-atory jape was spotted.

“This lady came up to me and asked me ‘what the hell are you doing?’. I froze and quickly shouted ‘Apartheid and Race!’ – you know, what I always shout when I get in an argument I’m scared of losing. Lucky for me, I’m a Post-grad and a Pol major, so I’m used to talking convincing-sounding crap at a moment’s notice.”

However, despite the confession, protest supporters have said it’s too late to turn back now, with UCT standing by its decision that the Rhodes monument must be removed.

“It’s kinda snowballed out of control,” said one marcher, who now feels dumb after the 14000 words and 3 676 tweets he’s written online critiquing elitism and institutionalised racism since the furore started. “And not just because of the resounding public support, thousand-strong marches and endless internet debate - just think of the Twitter followers I would lose if I were to back down now?”

This isn’t the first time such an eventuality has occurred on the famous Cape Town campus. Back in 2011, an Art student accidentally spilt paint all over her masters exhibition pieces, which quickly became part of a Masterclass exhibition series in half a dozen galleries.

“I’m in too deep to say anything now,” she said. “I mean, what did you expect me to say to my supervisor when he waffled on about ‘genius counter-intuitivity of a new post-peinture style’ and how ‘these works represented a breathtakingly bold defiance of the reductive transfixion of art into a meaningless product aimed at garnering marks or money’?”

And it doesn’t end there.

“Yesterday I left some blank canvasses in my gallery because I was in too much of a rush to stash them in my studio,” she told. “An art critic saw them, and now I’ve been force to announce my latest ‘Negative White’ series.”

Rhodes Statue “must fall” says UCT study

University of Cape Town administration is finalising plans to remove the ‘offensive and racist’ monument to Cecil John Rhodes, after a study was published this morning confirming that it was indeed the central anchor of institutionalised racism in South Africa and that its removal would immediately end all racism and hatred everywhere.

“We’ve crunched the numbers and looked at the data, and we’ve come to a conclusion we all knew was coming,” said Bart Hert, a researcher from the International Statistical Institute of South Africa, which was commissioned by the obviously Apartheid-worshiping tertiary institute to produce the study. “This statue is the root of all the anger, violence, and racism in not just the institutional culture in universities like UCT, but in all of South Africa as well, and removing it would instantly make the issue go away.”

Hert outlined the study’s findings in detail.

“You know, there are a lot of misconceptions about this debate. There are many people who believe that effecting the kind of institutional and societal change towards respect and dignity – a giant cognitive shift in our country’s paradigms that make us more tolerant and less likely to apply backwards and retrogressive ideas of racial discrimination – on such a large scale would take lots of effort and debate beyond shallow gestures that give the mere illusion of acceptance and progressivity."

"People assume it would require a massive improvement not just in our levels of basic education, but also in introducing complementary programs that allow hugely subsidised access to high quality education for all, regardless of origin or colour,” he told reporters. “This is obviously all wrong. We’ve found that we can just skip all this with a chisel and a hammer, and perhaps a set of sturdy chains and a M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank.”

Taking down statues has been proven to drastically
improve democracy, as shown in Iraq in 2003.

Ever since it shattered the global speed records for a comparison to Hitler, the debate around the iniquitous statue has been heated, with both sides staunchly standing by their False Dichotomy entrenched extremes. However, with the publication of this eye-opening study, both sides have put aside their differences.

“Since its earliest days of calm-level headed poo flinging and rational, logical accusations of racial bias, colour privilege, and empty ‘revolutionary’ lingo, it’s easy to see how some people were worried this entire thing would just devolve into another cesspit of racial slurs, facile and puerile comparisons to previous dictators ‘photoshopping’ history and fractious name-calling,” said one commenter who took time out of sipping lattes and buying apple Products to speak to reporters about white privilege, “but I really think this debate has brought out everyone’s compassionate, considerate side. And at the very least, it got me couple of retweets.”

UCT, which is still taking the difficult decision of which replacement statue of Nelson Mandela they’ll use, has responded to the study with their full cooperation, saying the “evil token of Satan” should be knocked down on Friday at the very latest.

“Maybe it’ll be Nelson Mandela sitting in a chair. Maybe it’ll be him standing up. Or maybe, now that we’re free to ‘improve’ history as we like, we can just have him wielding two massive machine guns like a colonialist-head-stomping Xhosa Django. “

Whatever their decision, one thing is for sure: the statue is coming down.

“Not because of who he was or how his legacy of oppression can be toxic to our university environment,” said the University in their lengthy statement, “but mostly so that you’ll all just shut the fuck up on Facebook and Twitter.”

Rhodes University was not available for comment, because they’re sitting this awkward one out.

Pics: Creative Commons.

Read more from Muse and Abuse on this hot topic:
Protest creator admits he "actually just shat [him]self" and another calm, balanced take on the whole matter.