Understanding Bullard's kind

Two things become evidently clear when one goes through David Bullard's missive about Africans being programmed to fail (see here). For one, Bullard does not seem to understand why Africans are not fond of having Caucasian self-righteousness been shoved down their throats. Secondly, Africans need to rid themselves of the delusion that one could ‘reason' any racist out of his/her innate prejudices. In order to make sense of these two issues, I would proceed with caution not to commit the latter felony - trying to reason with racists - but simply to expand on the content.

It is a fact of history that the broader Caucasian society are the last kind to ride any moral high horse, and that his reality could only be altered when the Caucasians themselves develop a greater appreciation of humanity, and evolve away from the image of the beasts that devoured Africa people and their dignity. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly evident that Bullard and his kind are the least evolved among the group.

For a well read and learned man (like many of Bullard's kind boast), the old man should have probably came across the visionary words of Franz Fanon in ‘The Wretched of the Earth', wherein he concludes: ‘So, my brothers, how is it that we do not understand that we have better things to do than to follow that same Europe?' He then continues: ‘Come, then, comrades, the European game has finally ended; we must find something different. We today can do everything, so long as we do not imitate Europe, so long as we are not obsessed with the desire to catch up with Europe.' The words of Fanon are very clear and precise, so I hope that Bullard and his kind would appreciate the insight.

But then I must also say that I do not wish to encourage that one should reject experience and information simply because the purveyor is a rogue of the worst kind, but I believe it would be reasonable and legitimate if one opts to take that particular approach. Instead of rubbing salt to wound with insults and racial arrogance, Bullard and his kind should be investing their energies in trying to become better humans than their forefathers.

It is indeed noble and encouraging that Bullard and his kind do find some time to promote unity, and that must be applauded as one of the first steps towards their evolution. But it is also reasonable that the concept of ‘unity in diversity' would be alien to many, and in particular the beneficiaries of the former apartheid regime.

‘This ideal conversation, a "free and open discussion by reasonable people" is thought to be a pre-condition for democracy, and needs to be safeguarded against the intrusion of other forms of discussion of the seemingly unreasonable people. Such rationality was taken in the past as the justification for the discourse of apartheid and motivated the permanent removal from society of opponents of the regime who threatened to disrupt the rational discussion of the white minority'. (Sonderling; 2001)

For these reasons, 16 years of democracy might still be too soon for Bullard and his kind to gain a grasp of democracy and in particular the ‘life and breath' of the Tripartite Alliance as led by the ruling ANC. "Each member of the alliance has the right to state his or her views...we have won the right to state our views freely without fear." (Nelson Mandela; 1998)

This brings us to the second issue at hand, which is the tendency by some Africans, particularly those with a tertiary academic background, to try and reason with racial prejudice. It appears that some among us are convinced that in order for social justice to prevail, one is obligated to win the respect of the racists, and therefore one must convince them through reason that racial arrogance and stereotypes are not productive. It is from this fastidious frame of thought that many scowl when Julius Malema does not toe the line.

I have noted a few young African intellectuals and writers who subscribe to this notion of being the ‘moderate chap' and take pride in being praised by unrepentant racists as the ‘ideal niggers'. Some have even been encouraged to join the ANCYL and topple Malema. I for one do not find any solace in being the ‘favorite black man', and I firmly believe that no self-respecting African should.

I have never been under the false impression that Bullard and his kind are simply ignorant malcontents who are not aware of the destructive nature of their beliefs. To hold this true would be tantamount to making an excuse for people who are acutely aware that the systems that produce inequality work to their advantage and should not be tempered with. The ‘be like us' leitmotif does not seek change but assimilation, and should be rejected with the contempt it deserves.

I mentioned earlier that one should not eternally reject experience or information purely because the purveyor is a scoundrel. I would therefore concur with Bullard that the South African media is ‘terrified to employ anyone who is too outspoken'. I have in mind here someone like Udo Floerse, whose work is only being published outside of his home country. Floerse is a seasoned researcher and writer of note and his opinions on Zimbabwe attests to that. It is a disservice to the South African public that Floerse has been censored and his work banished from their eyes and ears. But, herein rests the similarity between Bullard and the South African media: they do not appreciate ‘unity in diversity', and they consciously applaud the dominance of some against others.

Setumo Stone is a writer, social commentator and youth activist

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter