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.

“Some Races Better Than Others” – Institute of Race Studies

“We have to face the uncomfortable truth” –Lead Director IIRS

Controversy ruled today, after a panel of scientists and researchers at the International Institute for Race Studies confirmed a very controversial belief: that some races are inherently superior to others.

“For many years, the uncomfortable notion has been hanging around in the air, and we don’t want to stir the pot,” said Lead Researcher for the IIRS, Kay Kakay. “But when you look at the data, certain patterns begin to emerge that confirm this unpopular belief: that some races are just vastly inferior when compared to others. This isn’t just skin-deep any more. It’s fact.”

Kakay said that the decades-old liberal view – that all races were created equal and are equal in society – is just outmoded and wrong. He outlined the damning data that they had uncovered in their fact-finding mission.

“First of all, some races are shorter than others. While this isn’t the deal-breaker, it is certainly something to be cognisant of as we move forward,” he said, pointing at graphs, charts and Latin words that confirmed what he was reading was Pure Science. “Next, if we look into statistical surveys conducted with people in each of these races, they admit to certain character flaws that prop up what some consider a very ‘backward’ belief."

"For example, people in one kind of race often tend to be lazier or not as hard working as the more committed, dedicated and hard-working people in another. And in some races, even the most highly respected members of the community are eventually revealed to be nothing but a bunch of drug-addicted cheats and contemptible liars. It’s disgusting.”

The disconcerting evidence has been widely supported, at least in the South African community.

“Finally!” said a man holding braai tongs. “All this blerrie PC pussy-footing of okes too scared to not skirt around the truth. I’ve always thought some races was just utterly pointless, stupid and a waste of time, and now I know that I’ve always been right. Some races are obviously superior and deserve to be encouraged and supported.”

With all this scientific data, scientists and sociologists now admit that it is “totally permissible and indeed factually correct” to hate certain races, or prefer some races over others.

“Personally, I can’t stand those lazy bastards in the Two Oceans,” said one Johannesburg-based man. “The Comrades Marathon and the Tour de France are simply far, far superior.”

Pic: National Cancer Insititute and wikimedia commons

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.

SA games devs to release new 'South Africanised' World of Warcraft

Fans of Blizzard Entertainment's popular frustrating-grind-fest Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) World of Warcraft have cause to celebrate today after leading game designers and developers are Ray Cism games announced the development of an all-new completely "South Africanised" expansion pack, "Adventures in Zumaland".

Inspired by the fascinating and always-twisting plot lines, politics and socioeconomic climate of everyday South Africa, the game introduces some controversial and never-before-seen game elements that have fans jumping to pre-order the already best-selling title.

"We first go the idea when playing the old game - you have to pick a race and create a character, like elf, dwarf, barbarian, and so on, and your choice of your race affects how strong you are, what skills you can learn and what quests will be available to you," said cheif game designer Roger Jackson. "My first thought was, 'whoa, kind of like real life in South Africa!"

According to Jackson, when players hit the 'New Game' icon, they are randomly assigned a race, which dramatically affects how the game plays out.

"Kind of like being born in real life," he said.

Players who get randomly assigned 'White' as a race (which the development team have now dubbed "Easy Mode") will have access to premium early-game content, the opportunity to go to a good Magician's Guild or Swordmaster's Academy, and have access to starting bonus gold and experience, as well as access to top-tier quest equipment, such as Vaideron's +5 Perfect Flaming Halberd of Heavenly Wrath.

Conversely, should they draw 'Black', the game will shift itself accordingly.

"The starting bonuses won't be great," said Jackson. "Chances are you'll only be able to learn basic skills and use lower-standard weaponary and armour, like Phineas's Imperfect +2 Broken Rake of Sweeping The Garden, but we thinking that the game will more than make up for it by delivering a truly visceral, true-to-life gaming experience with its stunning realism."

He did, however, add that this wasn't a set rule.

"Not all White characters will have such access to bonuses, just as not all Black characters will have to struggle endlessly," he said. "Chances are, most of them will be somewhere in the middle of those extremes, where you're not poor enough for scholarships to the top schools, while not rich enough to buy top-tier swords and platemail."

He also added that there would be in-game mechanics to balance the playing field.

"We realise that these pre-game conditions make for severe disparities between different character types," he said, "which is why we have implemented code for our Equal Quest Employment and Empowerment Policy. With EQEE, for example, you can only accept the quest to slay the Valyrian Demon King Shar'galhduur in the Northern Dragonwastes if you're fully compliant and have submitted all relevent documentation for full level-4 accreditation."

Adventures in Zumaland will hit stores across the country in October.

UCT to change attractiveness policy

Following the recent controversy surrounding an article published by the University of Capetown’s Varsity newspaper (which was totally ignored by everyone because it's terrible journalism and stupid as all hell reposted in everyone's twitter feeds and all over facebook), UCT has announced their decision to change their current policy on attractiveness.

According to a press release from the University’s Department of Enrollments, there is a dire need for students to be equally good looking, or at least equally fugly, no matter what 'race' they are.

The incredibly scientific, trustworthy, based-on-hard-evidence, not-at-all-utterly-absurd-or-stupid-as-fuck study has made waves in the community

“Recent studies that we hand picked to support our argument show that being attractive is key to getting a degree. How are our students going to pass their exams and graduate when they are so worried about what other people think about them?” said the release. “Efforts need to be made to make everyone the same.”

Students, including 4th-year medicine student Paleso Mthethwa, have agreed.

"Everyone, especially doctors, know that how you look is so important in the working world. How can I perform triple-bypass surgery if I know that the man I'm operating on thinks my anesthesiologist is better looking than me?" she said.

So far, the University has adopted several short-term remedial policies aimed at enacting the much-needed change.

“We tried things like making all our students drink three litres of wine before lectures, so that they’d tap ANYTHING, but that didn’t work," said new head of Aesthetic Social Equality May Khover. "Then, we started offering bursaries to students who never went to the gym, and changed our cater department to be only KFC chicken nuggets, bacon sandwiched and oil milkshakes. These all failed. Soon, we realised that we have to implement a ground-up policy, starting from new first-years.”

The university has said it will implement a base-ten scale of attractiveness into its already convoluted thorough applications process. According to University statistics, they have already reached their newly-established Hot White People quota for the year. "As such, when it comes to the next round of applications, we will also look into enrolling a lot more students who are a 6.3 or under," said the Department of Enrollments.

It’s a move that excites the University greatly.

"It really is fantastic,” said Dean of Students Ahryu Uhglee. “Currently, we don’t have any systems in place that judge and limit applicants based purely on what they look like. Wait… hang on a minute…"

It is hoped that the changes will result in shallow, judgmental but also racially-sensitive students.

The new system, Uhglee says, is flawless.

“We’ve hired master specialists in this field from esteemed, tried-and-tested foreign institutes such as Friar Tuck’s Dancefloor and the V&A Waterfront’s Fashion Wing to ensure that we’re getting the same amount of pant-stirring no matter what race you look at. They’re the experts at these kinds of life-changing, important judgements,” she said.

The decision has not, however, pleased everyone, with some students in uproar, saying there is now an added pressure for white students to look less attractive.

"We know the whole survey was utter laughable garbage, but now we feel awkward if we go out looking semi-decent. I mean, I don't want to reinforce racial prejudice," said psychology major Jenna Harson. She and other students have gone so far as to not visit the hair salon every two weeks, and to ditch their cute indie clothes items in favour of more homely, unattractive items of clothing, such as res hoodies, torn Ugg boots, pajama pants, and mismatching socks.

“It’s awful,” said third-year law student Creeh Pinghard. “I feel like everyday I’m getting ready to study for a Humanities degree at Rhodes University during winter.”

In reaction to this news, expensive private schools across the country have been quick to advise their learners to avoid eyeshadow, mascara, lipstick, GHT hair irons, cute dresses and LBDs.

The new university policy states that, after being meticulously rated out of ten, applicants above a 6.3  will be given mandatory lessons in  Mussing Up Your Hair In A Way That Isn’t Bed-Sexy 101, Introduction to Mismatching Or Clashing Colours 102,  Granny pants 203, and Advanced courses in How to Get Bat. Those below 7 will get free makeovers. This, the University hopes, will ensure a comfortable, non-racial middle ground.

“I’m really excited by the move,” said art student and equity shareholder in a make-up company Luke Hinghud. “Now everyone will be able to equally bend to Western gloss-magazine ideas of what is 'beauty', who is good looking and who is not.”

Students excelling in these aforementioned classes can even receive bursaries. “These two students will fall into our new categories of ‘Previously gorgeous’ and ‘previously disadvantaged but not in a racial sense’,” said Hinghud.

However, the new changes have hotness analysts up in arms.

“UCT is known for its great fashion-sense and eclectic mix of hipsters and fashionistas," said the guy who stares at you from across the dancefloor. "Right now, on average, we’re sitting at about an 8.2. If the university has its way, we’ll all be 5.3s. SIES.”