What Is The Level of Our Commitment: Let's Explore Our Truth
Hat Tip: AM
Earlier I wrote an article, calling for the establishment of a trust fund, to help white victims of crime, to escape their hell and get out of the country, or to provide temporary relief of there dire situation. I mentioned, perhaps in the comments, that there is no such support group, that exclusively assists whites. AfriForum is perhaps the closest, and even then their mandate is very different to what I have in mind. Anyway, the ink was barely dry and I came across this article.
By the way, I strongly resent the title to this article, as it suggests that we whites, once again, refuse to change. In other words, we will not transform.
Please read this in the context of my earlier request. AfriForum will increasingly come under fire, until it is forced to surrender. We need an informal system of being able to offer assistance, without the fanfare. Something akin to an anonymous benefactor.
Pic: Pinky Khoabane
Can somebody out there tell me how AfriForum has managed to get away with being a lily-white (The racist bitch is allowed the use of such terms. Imagine I used "pitch black") organisation that looks after the interests of one racial group in a South Africa that supposedly loathes segregation?
This group, which was established by the trade union Solidarity, tells us in its founding charter that it represents the interests of minorities and not those of a racial group. But a record of its campaigns speaks volumes about its race of choice (No it doesn't. It speaks volumes about your IQ. Coloureds and Asians are favoured under AA and BEE policies. The only marginalised minority are the whites).
Since its inception it has taken on a number of cases on behalf of an exclusively white clientele, including serving legal papers on the Zimbabwean and South African governments on behalf of white Zimbabwean farmers.
It has complained to the University of Pretoria about the language rights of Afrikaans-speaking students, and mobilised communities against geographical name changes.
Where is the Human Rights Commission when you need it? Better still, where are the loud noises that shut down groups such as the Forum of Black Journalists (FBJ) before it could even open its doors for business because it was deemed racist?
Unlike the FBJ, AfriForum has been allowed to operate with impunity, with human rights activists seemingly accepting their right to assemble with whoever they choose. You will remember that no sooner had FBJ staged a comeback in 2008 than it was forced to shut down on the grounds that its membership was exclusive to blacks and was therefore racist. (Ah, must I spell it out. The FBJ was founded on the basis of race. AfriForum isn't).
What had sparked the saga was an off-the-record briefing it had organised with President Jacob Zuma shortly after he won the much-contested presidency of the ANC. The meeting was open to black journalists only.
White journalists who tried to attend the event were barred, sparking complaints with the commission.
The commission found that the black journalists had acted unconstitutionally by excluding their white counterparts. It also recommended that the FBJ amend its constitution to open membership to all race groups.
Could it be that the difference between AfriForum and the FBJ is that the latter actively excluded other races through its constitution while the former carefully worded its constitution in such a way that it does not pander to racial exclusivity while its campaigns do exactly that? I would be curious to find out. (Actually, what is more curious, is why you think minorities, or specifically whites, do not deserve representation. The FBJ and AfriForum have completely different agendas. AfriForum is fighting for the very survival of white Afrikaners. The FBJ seeks to entrench black supremacy, and to exploit their position of dominance)
Last week AfriForum reared its racist (Racist? How so? Because you say so?) head again in its ongoing battle for the retention of the name Pretoria. Its continued fight for the preservation of apartheid-era geographical names not only makes a mockery of our democracy, but is as telling a barometer of reconciliation in this country as any.
It also gives an indication of the extent to which some parts of white South Africa will go to harbour symbols of that grotesque policy of racial segregation (The name Pretoria, was established long before 1948, so how is it a symbol of segregation?).
Pretoria, which AfriForum is so vehemently defending, is named after Andries Pretorius who, in 1838, led the Battle of Blood River, so named because the river turned red with the blood of 3000 Zulus killed by the Voortrekkers. (You write this in a manner that suggests a cold-blooded slaughter. Hardly; the Boers were massively outnumbered and the Zulus were the aggressors)
When this lily-white group cites lack of public participation as a reason for opposing name changes, you almost want to burst out laughing. (Why, in the name of reconciliation, would you want to deny a minority group its history?)
Public participation, my foot!
Which one of the groups opposing the name changes - be it AfriForum, the Freedom Front Plus, the Afrikanerbond or the Democratic Alliance - consulted any of the communities from which they stole land and changed names in order to assert their dominance in those areas? (When was the sparsely populated land stolen? Are you suggesting it was yours by virtue of the fact that pitch black people occupied the land? What about those tribes that were completely eradicated by marauding pitch black Zulus and Xhosas?)
Perhaps the Tshwane Metro Council and the Limpopo Geographic Names Committee erred by not opening the discussions to a larger audience, as required by law.
But may I remind those opposing these new names that there is another requirement for the geographic names and places of a democratic South Africa: the names should not be offensive. (Indeed, and I find Tshwane offensive)
The new names are nothing but a break from the policies of a system that was judged a crime against humanity by the United Nations. And let me place on record that, 15 years after South Africa's democracy, this country's heritage landscape is still dominated by English and Afrikaans names.
Changing the names is a vital aspect of restoring the history and existence of the black person in this country. (Restoring the history, what history?)
Black people lived in this country long before 1994, and also long before the arrival of white colonialists. They should therefore be reflected in the country's symbolism. (Yes, but don't cherry pick. Pitch black people existed along the east coast, not in the Western Cape)
In a week in which we celebrate the turning point of South Africa's history and take stock of how far we have come, the actions of AfriForum stand as a stark reminder that reconciliation is one-sided. (You mean "how far we have regressed")
And that the more things change, the more they remain the same. (Indeed, South Africa is not extraordinary, it will revert to being the same as the rest of Africa)
Source: Times Live
Source: Times Live