Column itself falls into the trap of using generalisations
THE column, Economics and Reality, of December 12 (“Whites prove all too human”) seems to be built on one central theme that we may call by at least two names, prejudice or generalisation. Allow me to call a spade a spade. The content of the column is built on the alleged racial prejudice that white people hold towards black people, more specifically black people in positions of authority, irrespective of in the public or the private sector.
Likewise, the columnist seems to believe that all white people generalise when they form an opinion on black incumbents of positions.
I motivate this conclusion on grounds of the statement made that white people are an homologous group – the author does qualify this typology by saying: “To the extent that they are an homologous group the white community tend to have a self-image of innocence and purity” (my emphases).
Soon after describing the white community in these terms the author draws the circle a little smaller by referring to the Afrikaner community.
I admit that I did not try to find the context in which the Afrikaans author W A de Klerk is quoted.
I do know that De Klerk was anything but a blue-eyed boy of the apartheid government.
I spot some cracks in the homology argument when the author relies on sources such as Hennie van Vuuren and Pieter-Louis Myburgh for facts concerning the apartheid era.
Neither their names nor their facts are in dispute.
These names from the Afrikaans-speaking community added to others such as the late Dr Frederick van Zyl Slabbert, and today’s Max du Preez, Willie Esterhuyse, Jacques Pauw, Roelf Meyer and Tannie Evita, do not underwrite the view of all white people tending to have a self-image of innocence and purity.
From the English-speaking community, many names can be added – Helen Suzman is probably one of the most prominent, the late Molly Blackburn from Port Elizabeth another one.
The counter-argument I expect to hear is that they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Let me be very clear on one point. I am by no means referring to the smaller circle of Afrikaners and their alleged bad habits to rekindle the fires of animosity between the two language groups.
Those have hopefully been laid to rest, except perhaps for the isolated cases of some extremists who do not deserve generalisation.
The euphemisms that are quoted for the case of Markus Jooste versus the more vicious terminology allegedly used in the case of corruption by black people beg the question: are the persons who use euphemisms doing it to justify or soft-pedal the alleged misconduct and are they ready to forgive him?
My guess is that in most cases these people express their condemnation with what is said to have happened, but speak against the background of their knowledge of the person.
In the case of recent bomb attacks in London we heard neighbours saying similar things about the bomb planters.
A further generalisation is in the case of transformiso when land ownership is mentioned.
No recognition is given to the willingness of organised agriculture and many property owners to cooperate with the land reform policy.
Why not acknowledge the cases where land owners and their employees have successfully established a variety of agreements to share ownership and divide profits equitably?
Several examples exist of mentorships based on goodwill.
Reputable research institutes and agricultural organisations such as AgriSA and the National Woolgrowers’ Association produce reports that are worth scrutinising.
Are these again the exceptions that prove the rule?
The article is meant to alert us to prejudice and generalisations, but steps into that trap itself.
In closing I’ll generalise, but my generalisation excludes only a few extremists.
Daily, when I observe and experience the frictionless goodwill between people of all races and persuasions it affirms a great degree of optimism about our future in South Africa.