On Trapido's 'Stabbing of Canadian couple' and the Huntley controversy

The case of Brandon Huntley — in terms of the divergent reactions of South Africans to his attempts to get Canadian refugee status, not so much what he did — has become one emblem of the current South African collective consciousness and subconsciousness. That emblem is the denial of racism conflated with the accusation that others are racist. The latter are people one can refer to as racist accusers … while struggling with that “dis-ease” or hatred themselves. This is Psychology 101. I project on to you what I deny in myself. Carl Jung said: “Everything that irritates us about others can lead to a better understanding of ourselves”. That’s one of his rightly famous ones, if you don’t know it. Just Google.

An example of this racist/accusatory racism conflation and its corollaries can be found in Mike Trapido’s recent blog on the horrible assault on Martin and Janet Stern. Please note how the grim story is already made a racist issue virtually from the beginning of his blog — detracting from the real issue, which is horrific violence. For example: “South Africa, after all, does not condone racism in any form”. This staggeringly naïve statement cannot be simply called denial. That’s somehow too tame. His generalising assertion is like a herd of ostriches with necks three feet deep in the hardening concrete, never mind the sand. For example, what has been rife in South Africa is xenophobia — which can be considered a form of racism, as it is a form of othering and demeaning, never mind the murderous violence done sometimes to the othered victim. Sadly, there are also plenty of “skin” racists — just from personal experience at home or abroad. And there are plenty of racist accusers, a notorious, largely unpunished recent example being Leonard Chuene and others accusing members of the international community of racism during the Caster Semenya affair while Chuene was just covering up his own wrongdoing. My recent blog, which mentioned the sorry plight Zimbabwe is in, offended some Zimbabweans as they seemed to be confused by the bleak facts (which hardly requires an expert on Southern Africa to figure out). They then obscured said facts by … drum roll and clashing cymbals … calling me a racist.

The only plea for innocence about what Traps has written, as quoted above, is that it is muddled writing. By “South Africa” what is the writer referring to? The government? And by association is he referring to the Constitution which, alas, at the end of the day, is just print on paper and not what actually goes on in the real world of SA? Or is the writer referring to the general feel and actions of “the people” at grass roots on racism? It is difficult to engage with muddled language but I will try.

Traps then makes a ridiculous racist issue of the horrific attack on Janet and Martin Stern. It is made more ridiculous by the fact that, at his time of writing, it was not known what the skin colour of the assailants were (so why bother making it racist?): “The Canadians are going to spin this over and over and form the opinion that South Africa is not the place to go if you are white.” This is pure speculation and irresponsible. To some Canadian commentators on the story, it is not even regarded as a worthwhile story. I assume Mike Trapido is implying SA is not the place to go to if you are white due to the fabricated, or genuine, racial crime stories, like Huntley’s. (As far as I know Huntley’s stories still seem to be not provable as none of the crimes against him were documented, such as in any police station or elsewhere.) But Traps should not be making idle speculations about the imagined Canadian response as a race issue. This undermines, cheapens and makes a political chess game of the valid claims of many victims, regardless of skin colour, including the Sterns. He is also making Canadians sound like ‘morons”, to use his own term for their authorities. The laziness of the insult again reminds me chillingly of Juju Malema’s childish outbursts. Oh well, they apparently belong to the same party.

Traps also says: “The fact that nowhere (correct me if I’m wrong) does it appear what race the attackers were, is not going to be noticed in the clamour to regard South Africa as a no-white zone”. The issue is not about South Africa as a no-white zone. It is not a no-white zone and to raise that as a debate is obscuring the real issue. The genuine issue — to separate the wood from the trees — is about the violence (racial or non-racial), which little is being done about. I know I am flogging a dead horse now, but Traps makes the attack on two innocent people a racist issue when it is not.

Then Traps changes direction without any warning: “Their [Canadian] government might tell them of the reality — the South African tourism board might paint a vastly different picture, but each time we send home body bags and victims of extreme violence — the damage done to South Africa’s reputation is enormous”. Agreed. But one moment Traps seems to be saying South Africa’s reputation is unjustifiably tarnished, if racial or black on white violence is asserted: “The Canadians are going to spin [the attack on the Sterns] over and over and form the opinion that South Africa is not the place to go if you are white”. But now, with regard to the Traps quotation at the beginning of this paragraph, is Traps saying South Africa’s reputation is enormously affected if it is regarded as non-racial violence? Absurd. The problem here is that Mike Trapido does not clearly think through what he is writing.

Another Trapsism: “South Africans need to think long and hard about this culture of violence and intolerance so that some day they can laugh off the claims of the Brandon Huntley’s [sic] of this world”. A confusing statement. Yes, to state the obvious, all people need to think about the culture of violence the global community lives in and which is also marketed as a form of entertainment, be it CCTV or the kind of movies Hollywood and other movie/TV industries dish out. But why should that plea to think long and hard directly lead to “laughing off” of the Huntley’s of this world, assuming Huntley’s claims are entirely unfounded? The sickening nature of violence and spurious claims are two separate issues, last time I looked at syllogistic logic or sequential reasoning. But it is the nature of those who wish to bring racism into everything to not think things through clearly, and to do that woolly thinking without a fairly thorough self-knowledge (see the Jung quotation above again).

For example, a syllogism may state:
1. Violence is horrific. (Major premise.)
2. Some people are violent. (Minor premise.)
3. Therefore some people are horrific, namely those who do violence. (Conclusion.) Common sense. Easy peasy.

But it violates syllogistic reasoning to state, for example:
1. Violence is horrific.
2. Some people make spurious claims.
3. People making spurious claims are horrific.

That is ludicrous. A spurious claim and violence are two separate issues. And I hate having to state something so dumbly obvious. And here I go again, in conclusion.That the Brandon Huntley’s or Janet and Martin Stern may or may not be a victim of racism obscures the real concerns: violence is sickening and unacceptable, and every human being is entitled to be protected from violence.