Is this provocative? Sorry, it’s actually meant to be ironic

THERE was provocation before the Cosatu supporters began raining ballistic brickbats on the DA march, they tell me.

It was provocative of Zille to challenge the unions so close to their headquarters, many felt.

Violence was inevitable; Africa’s not for sissies, they said. “Looking for kak” was the Twitter hashtag used by someone whose opinions I used to admire. I shall have to take their word for it.

I dare not attempt an opinion. The implication behind the blasé acceptance that “of course the unionists were going to throw stones; it’s what they do” is that Africa, by definition, will never produce a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King.

“Non-violent opposition is beyond us as Africans” is the subtext; it’ll always boil down to us throwing bricks whenever we’re provoked.

If I said that, it would be racist; so just as well it’s the opinion of Cosatu and its supporters, who we all know are beyond racist. Er, beyond racism, rather.

Well, okay – maybe their insistence that no “true” African could support the DA is a teeny bit racist in its prescription of what constitutes a true African, but not much.

No more so than the average Wilbur Smith novel, in a “Zulus are brave but arrogant and Arabs are shifty” sort of way.

Given the levels of racism in some sections of the population, this stuff barely counts, so let’s not make an issue of it. Africa’s not for sissies; if you’re offended, grow a thicker skin.

Still, provocation’s bang out of order. Once you’ve resorted to provocation, you deserve anything that comes your way in return.

That Langalibalele was being extremely provocative when he allowed his amahlubi to go off and work in the Kimberley mines, then come back paid in guns.

Refusing to hand over the firearms and have his people split up under the direction of white Natal settlers was just adding insult to injury.

He should have known Shepstone would destroy his tribe and pack him off to Robben Island, but he went on being insufferably provocative anyway.

Cetshwayo was fairly provocative, too, what with his insistence on sovereign nation status for the amazulu and respect for their territorial boundaries – what exactly did he expect the Brits and Boers to do? He’d seen how they treated the other natives, but still he had to provoke, provoke, provoke.

As for those Boers? Well, carving out republics amid some of the richest mineral resources in the world, with the British Empire right next door – if that’s not provocation of the most egregious order, I don’t know what is.

Pass-law protests in Sharpeville; anti-afrikaans demonstrations in Soweto; international lobbying against apartheid – all were great provocations in their day.

The provocateurs knew how the other side would respond. That journalist who criticised Steve Hofmeyr’s shoes? That petrol attendant who was cheeky to Baas Eugene? That referee who kept blowing against the Boks the day Piet van Zyl was at the stadium?

One thing in common: when they decided to be provocative, they knew what to expect. Violent retribution was inevitable.

And that, according to Cosatu and its apologists, is apparently as it should be.

It’s a depressing little truism we’re all supposed to accept: if you provoke bullies, they will visit violence upon you.

Sadly, no one in the Cosatu camp is promoting the corollary: bullies will leave you unmolested if you don’t provoke them. Perhaps because that’s never the case.

Still, the day we turn that corollary into a universally accepted truth, we might be getting somewhere.

Unfortunately, trying to teach Cosatu that lesson will probably be provocative.

alynadams@gmail.com