CAN someone please explain the sudden popularity of throwing kak everywhere?

It seems to especially be the fashionable thing to do in the Western Cape.

If angry protesters aren't dumping it at the legislature or airport, they're throwing it on the statue of Cecil John Rhodes at the University of Cape Town.

I'll have more to say about that turd Rhodes soon, but first I want to talk about these kak protests in general.

I just think that if your goal is to fight racism, colonialism and white domination, making a big, smelly mess in a public space isn't the best approach.

Who do you think is going to have to clean up all that crap? Black men and women, of course.

Yes, these public spaces where whites often still dominate are almost always kept nice and clean by black people.

That's the legacy of apartheid that's still with us. Protesting the way our ancestors were treated by forcing our elders to clean up huge pools of shit just seems counterproductive to me.

Anger at injustice is good, but we have to think about how we channel it.

But enough about literal kak. Let's talk about Rhodes and the statue. The man was a vile, racist pig, and I can understand that a lot of people don't like the idea of having to look at his statue.

At the same time, if I was a student at UCT, I'd look at things differently.

Every time I walked past the statue it would fill me with joy and pride. It would be a reminder that I had overcome centuries of oppression by people like Rhodes, who didn't want me to ever even be able to set foot on a university campus.

Let him look on as I trample on his dreams.

But that's me, and maybe I've just had too much whiskey again.

There's another side to all of this, and it has to do with statues of people who lived long ago in general.

The hard truth is that a lot of them may not be seen as such nice people if they were around today.

And a lot of people today probably have reason to feel as "traumatised" by having to look at them as they do when they look at the statue of Rhodes.

A good example is King Shaka. He was a great king of the Zulu nation, and a military genius, but like a lot of historical heroes and villains he was a product of his time.

And if he was around today, he'd probably be charged with war crimes and committing genocide.

Shaka's armies rampaged through the land, killing men, women and children and enslaving the survivors.

It's not hard to find people today whose ancestors were victims of his brutally efficient war machine.

WHAT about historical figures from other countries? It's the same story. Alexander the Great would be Alexander the War Criminal today.

Gandhi is a beloved figure all over the world, including Mzansi, but he said some very racist things about black people.

Does this mean that we should get rid of statues of Shaka and Gandhi, or shower them in kak?

No. Rhodes, Shaka and Gandhi are part of our history.

Some statues remind us of great people in whose footsteps we can only hope to follow, while others remind us of who we should never become.

They also remind us of how far we have come as a country.

Maybe one day the angry young students at UCT will relax enough to realise this, and start thinking with their brains and not their bums.

* Thank you for all your e-mails. Each one is read very carefully, sometimes twice if I'm seeing double after a few too many glasses of single malt. I always enjoy reading what you have to say, even when you disagree with me.

E-mail me at [email protected]. Until next time, salani kahle!

This article first appeared in the Sunday Sun.

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