Deconstruct irrational debates in SA

Musyoka, Jason 29 May 2019

https://mg.co.za/article/2019-05-29-00-deconstruct-irrational-debates-in-sa/

COMMENT
A few weeks ago, I warned that if South African society is to emerge from the tragic
socioeconomic legacy of apartheid in a meaningful way, we will need to restore
rational thought in public discourse. Because ideas need power for them to influence
a greater constituency, we have tended to hand them over to politicians. What is
worse, we accept politicians will lead national (and global) debates.

There are several examples of irrational debates in South Africa today, two of which I
would like to address. The first is an older discourse on white monopoly capital,
which is largely political and has gained legitimacy in most quarters in South Africa.

If we dissect the meaning of each of the constitutive words “white, monopoly and
capital”, the combination of these words is in itself irrational. First, capital in the Karl
Marx sense is always monopolistic. Those who possess different forms of capital
hold more economic, social and political power in society. Thus, to talk of capital, we
already talk of monopoly. What about the prefix “white”? It is true that there are more
white people than black people who possess wealth-generating assets in South
Africa. But whether capital has any transaction with race is a debatable point.

It could be that capital in South Africa concentrates among white people, but if there
was a decree to turn over all capital to black South Africans, it would still be capital
and it would still be monopolistic.

Whether it is in black or white hands makes it no less brutal against the poor and the
working class. These contradictions distort the discourse by inserting the words
“white” and “monopoly”.

The second recent debate sparked by the Western Cape’s outgoing premier, Helen
Zille, although mainly political, is that of black privilege. We could turn a deaf ear,
suggesting that it is not based on reality. Although it may be unreal to us, there is a
large constituency that perceives Zille’s argument as reality.

The debate about what is real and what is not requires a logical tool to determine
whether it holds any merit or otherwise. First, Zille was reacting emotionally to a
tweet by an emotionally charged tweeter, who argued that white privilege was
altogether a disfavour to Africans and that Zille did not understand how this worked.
Zille responded as follows: “Well, you clearly don’t understand black privilege. It is
being able to loot a country and steal hundreds of billions and get re-elected. If ppl
want permanent poverty for the masses they are going about it the right way.”

Some Zille supporters applauded her for exposing an uncomfortable truth.

Uncomfortable? Yes. But is this truth? There are at least two logical faults with this

1
assertion. First, rather than a genuine intellectual inquiry, Zille’s argument emerges
out of an emotional transaction and, by this virtue alone, any rational pathway
becomes almost implausible.

Second, Zille creates moral equivalence between white privilege and what she terms
as black privilege. The rationale behind white privilege is that by being white one is
freely credited (without any merit other than skin colour) certain social value or
benefits. Conversely, what could be the rationale behind black privilege? Zille’s
answer to this question is the right to corruption. But is corruption a privilege? Not if
we agree to the textbook definition of privilege. In her already fractional vision, Zille’s
charge seems aimed at corrupt behaviour among politicians, but she equates corrupt
political behaviour to black behaviour, as if all black people are politicians and all
politicians are black.

At the core of both debates is the question of reality. Where does the truth lie?
Relativists would argue that there is no absolute truth, and therefore we cannot make
a case for absolute reality. Except that these same relativists believe that relativism
is the truth. In other words, they hold to be true the argument that there is no
absolute truth. In so doing, they violate the fundamental law of logic; the law of non-
contradiction. This is the same charge I level against the two debates. They defy
logic in the effort to present their version of truth, logically.

Both discourses are irrational, emotional and grammatically inconsistent attempts to

deflect national debates from a more constructive, rational pathway. Public
intellectuals will have to rise to the occasion and correct these and other national
discourses if we are to build a society on the pillars of reason.
Jason Musyoka is an associate researcher at the Centre for the Advancement
of Scholarship, University of Pretoria. These are his own views.

Pietermaritzburg Girls High: Codes of conduct won’t fix entrenched racism

Mail & Guardian 7 June 2017

Staff Reporter

https://mg.co.za/article/2017-06-07-pietermaritzburg-girls-high-codes-of-conduct-
wont-fix-entrenched-racism/

Monday’s social media storm around racism at Pietermaritzburg Girls High

School, where a white pupil allegedly used the k-word to describe black pupils,
is forcing us to have (yet another) conversation about race in South Africa.
The Grade 11 learner reportedly used the racial slur because she was upset
about her name being misspelled and mispronounced by others at the school.
She has since been suspended from the school pending an investigation into
the incident.

2
2016 Penny Sparrow She had taken to Facebook and described black beachgoers
as "monkeys", in an apparent reaction to litter left behind after New Year’s
celebrations

This is certainly not the first racist incident at a Model C school in South Africa, but
the school’s alleged response was truly disturbing. Students reported that staff told
them to “get over it” and that the student had used the slurs because she was under
a lot of stress. When approached for comment, the school chose not to comment on
these reports.

Those of us who attended Model C schools were unsurprised by these reports.

Having been through the system, we know that racism is often trivialised as a way to
absolve both the guilty party and those tasked with disciplining them from any real
responsibility. (Remember when Penny Sparrow tried to convince us that calling
black people monkeys wasn’t racist because monkeys are “cute”?) Downplaying
overt racist behaviour, even from a minor, and explaining it as a manifestation of
stress makes it easier to avoid any real consequences.
Being told to “get over it” negates what we constantly have to say about race: just
because we are equal on paper does not mean we are equal in real life.

The problems with this incident go beyond the irony of a white student complaining
about her name being ‘disrespected’. (Those of us with “difficult’’ names have never
known anything different.) It even goes beyond the racial slur, which left many
people enraged, if unsurprised.

The fact is, the school’s response to this racist incident was predictably half-
hearted. The school made sure to tell us that they “have zero tolerance to racism of
any kind” and that they “condemn in the strongest terms” the use of racial slurs. They
also notified the department of education promptly. And in case we were worried that
justice would not be served, they assured us that “the correct procedures and
disciplinary actions are being taken”.
In short, they have done everything right, and we should commend them for taking
the correct steps.

Putting aside how ridiculous it is to be praised for meeting the minimum standards
for decency, Pietermaritzburg Girls High School has missed the point. And it’s a
point that is far too often overlooked.

Turning to codes of conduct, or disciplinary procedures, or that old classic, the

Constitution might work – if we were dealing with once-off incidents of racism. Such
documents are based on the assumption that the social systems we live in are
working fine. They’re designed to provide rules for dealing with the occasional rogue
agent. They assume that neither the school nor the people associated with it – from
students to parents to teachers – are racist.

The truth is that the system is broken. The society we live in allows this pattern of
racial discrimination and vitriol to exist, not only at Model C schools but throughout
the country. The system doesn’t punish racist behaviour; people are able to say and
do all manner of racist things and go about their lives as normal afterwards.

3
Model C schools are notorious for their systemic prejudice. Just this week, Northcliff
High School was forced to recall the concession cards issued to Muslim
students who wore headscarves at school. A cursory scroll through the
#GHSDefendYourGirls hashtag on social media sheds light on the situation in
Pietermaritzburg. And we remember well the repeated racism and injustice at
Pretoria High School for Girls last year.
These are only a few, high-profile stories of racism in the so-called born-free
generation.

So we need to ask ourselves: what would it actually take to raise a tolerant

generation? Because a slap on the wrist and a code of conduct certainly won’t be
enough to fix what is so clearly broken.

Judi Nwokedi As long as stigma is attached to Aids, the virus will prevail

Discrimination against people infected with HIV and stereotyping are as harmful as
the actual disease

Judy Nwokedi 30 November 2021 Sunday times

https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times-daily/opinion-and-analysis/2021-11-30-
judi-nwokedi--as-long-as-stigma-is-attached-to-aids-the-virus-will-prevail/

On this 33rd World Aids Day it is time to reflect on how far we’ve come and how little
we’ve gained.

Despite SA having the world’s largest antiretroviral therapy (ART) programme,

despite the scientific developments and research, despite the bold commitments and
good intentions, one fact is brutally clear. The virus is winning.

We have made a mistake in treating HIV as yet another chronic condition, like
diabetes, high blood pressure or heart conditions; all major killers in SA. The
difference is this: HIV travels with a lot of excess baggage — guilt and shame in the
infected, coupled with judgment and ridicule from the community.
In the battle to contain HIV infections, we cannot embrace the medicines while
ignoring prejudice.
No other disease carries this level of burden. No other disease challenges the
infected with both external and internal stigma. We have the testing kits. We have
the drugs. Stigma is the lingering threat to eradicating HIV infections. The best
scientific interventions are doomed to fail as long as stigma prevails among us.

Only HIV carries the heavy price of ridicule and rejection, when the infected dare to
disclose their status.

Stigma is the reason HIV is still associated with promiscuity, immorality and
bewitchment. We may hide behind these stereotypes but not for much longer.

4
HIV does not ask if we are male, female, transgender, young, old, black, white, gay,
straight, good or evil. HIV does not ask if we deserve to receive this virus. HIV only
requires us to be human. No one is spared. If you think you are safe from HIV, then
you are definitely in danger.

In the battle to contain HIV infections, we cannot embrace the medicines while
ignoring prejudice. We cannot continue to bury our loved ones, when we cannot say
the word Aids. We can no longer allow those infected to marinate in shame, while
giving others permission to judge, belittle and wound. We can no longer weep
silently and grieve alone.

Fear, guilt and shame play havoc with the choices we make. Fear is the reason a
man who feels unwell opts not to visit a clinic, despite displaying symptoms, while
continuing to reject condom use. Disempowerment is the reason a woman will not
insist on condom use out of fear of being labelled “loose”. Shame is what prevents
us from not realising that those who reject us because of our infection are not worthy
of our love or our time. Guilt is what eats us inside and leads us to self-harm when
we think contracting HIV is our fault and punishment.

To the clinic and the church, I say this. There are some healthcare and spiritual
providers that are brilliant and empathetic, but it is regrettable that these pillars of our
communities, tasked with the care of the body and soul, are too often the sites of
severe discrimination and stigma. The 11 principles of the Batho Pele (People First)
concept, introduced by the Mandela administration in 1997, are only visible on
yellowed posters in waiting rooms, and often not put into practice. This is the major
reason marginalised population groups avoid seeking medical help.

My message to our national leaders, is this: history and hindsight are our teachers. It
is time to act as swiftly and for you to stand with us, and not in front of us. Political
denialism, ignorance and poor service delivery have killed us by the millions. Over
the last decade we have focused more on clinical treatment, placing prevention and
education on the back burner.

Perhaps most important of all is the call to action to ourselves. Nothing accelerates
HIV faster than hateful words, spiteful actions and ignorant thought. The myths and
madness have got to stop. Ignorance gives power to suffering and injustice.

Our words have power. There was a time when the term “gay” was used as an
acronym for “Got Aids Yet?”

When we stop referring to those suspected to be living with HIV as Z3s or trackers,
stigma loses its spread. When we use the phrase “HIV-infected woman/man” we
strip the person of their humanity. When we stop referring to “Aids orphans”, we will
enable our children to grow and develop, less burdened by the trauma of their birth
circumstances. When we receive condolences after a cancer bereavement, yet deny
the Aids-related death of a loved one, we block the freedom of disclosure for those
living with HIV.

5
Without language, stigma is stopped in its tracks.

But as the saying goes, “talk is cheap”. In response to HIV stigma and discrimination,
this sentiment has never been truer. The latest figures from Stats SA estimate that
7.8-million people are living with HIV in SA (June 2020), and HIV prevalence among
adults aged 15 to 49 years stands at 18.7% of the population. With the decline in
testing levels since the onset of Covid-19, these figures significantly underrepresent
the reality on the ground.

These figures attest to what we already know. There is no community, no household,

no organisation in SA unaffected by HIV. Everyone has a story, and every story has
value. Someone just has to hear it. The next time we look for a face to represent the
face of HIV, we need not seek out a neighbour, a colleague, a fellow churchgoer or
even a stranger. We need only look in the mirror.

Judi Nwokedi is chair of the Aids Consortium in SA, a human rights organisation
aimed at promoting a non-discriminatory response to the HIV/Aids epidemic.