Violent Black Criminals . . .

I know you will probably not believe me when I tell you that this post has nothing to do with Steve Hofmeyr. For what it is worth, it does not. It is as a result of a conversation on tweeter, between someone who calls himself comradesipho and another by the name of sentletse. These two among others seem to have been talking about black criminals and how they are violent or maybe there were just talking about crime, I don't know. In the cause of the conversation, there was a suggestion that if we could figure out why black criminals are so violent, then we would go a long way in solving South Africa's problems. I may have gotten the whole thing wrong though but I hope to learn from it.

Is this conversation about black criminals as opposed to white criminals? Is the use of black in this conversation the same as the use of that term in relation to BEE? How would understanding the violent black criminals help to solve the problems of South Africa? Are these problems of violence or of crime or problems generally?

Anyway, back to violent black criminals. Does it really matter that violent crimes are committed by blacks? Well, in South Africa it does matter. It provides important statistical evidence that blacks, not crime, are violent. Consequently, there is or must be a link between violence and race. The continuum would be from white (non-violent) to blacks (very violent) with (who exactly) in the middle - here I must admit I am stumped. All this is no news. It is human to seek out "facts" or (more appropriately) incidents that support your view of the world. It is the same thinking that supports the view that muslims are terrorists, jews are wealthy, indians are cheats and so on and so forth. It is on this naturally human basis that race becomes a study object of violent crime.

What interests me in this whole race-is-a-function-or-cause-of-all-else world view, is how I get to represent or be represented by others of "my race". A few years ago, some boys with "good breeding", who also happened to attend one of Johannesburg's finest schools, just happened to beat one of their own senseless. This violent criminal act was seen just as that. Of course there was a problem here - white boys of such good breeding just don't do such things. It must have been the alcohol. No, wait a minute. It turns out the lion's share of the violence was carried out by some boy from "the wrong side of the tracks". I think he was from the east rand and did not attend the top school concerned. These boys and others like them do not and are never said to represent whiteness in their dastardly acts. I happen to yawn without covering my mouth? Ah yes you got it, the double-whammy of bad breeding and race.

This of course is a complex web; it had to be to be sustainable over such a long time. The racist project is one of the most clever systems to be devised. It survives on its appearance of complexity; on this need to explain it. The system is so clever that very clever people spend a lot of time considering its merits and demerits. I have often wonder why the system is simply not destroyed just as it was constructed. The response I get all the time is that "you are being too simplistic - you don't understand". I concede that I am a great fan of simplicity; it is irresistible to me and has served me well so far.

To illustrate: black people routinely go to rugby matches, cricket matches, golf at sun city, etc. This is never celebrated as incidents of a society transformed and united - correctly so. Six white people among 7 thousand soccer fans? "Oh just see how our country has changed and how the people are together". People often ask with what seems to be genuine puzzlement: "what happened to the goodwill of the soccer world cup?" Nothing happened to the goodwill, it wasn't there in the first place. People behaved because security was good and they sat together because that's just how the ticketing worked. A lot of white people went to the events because more white countries qualified and more white people could afford it. Simple really. After the game we all go home.

This may come as a surprise to some folk but I would rather no one comes over the wall at my home to rob and kill me and my family, no matter what race they belong to. I would rather no one turned their children into porn stars or kept their daughters in the basement for their sexual pleasure. Unfortunately though, people do just that. It seems to me that violent crime is ok as long as its victims are not white, regardless of the perpetrators at least in South Africa.

Crime is a function of a whole lot of things, some known some not. Some day we will knuckle down to deal with those things. In the meantime, do watch out for those violent black criminals.

Who is Annalie Botes?

There seems to be a rule that when one says something, especially if it is a view or an opinion, then one has to be right. I am not even sure what being right would be in that context but I will not dare unzip that wet suit. So I say something like “Swazi women are the most beautiful”. Yeah, yeah it is all positive and shit but what informs the observation? Is it my visit to the “reed-dance” festival; or is it a result of some study of “beautiful” women? I bet you my overdraft that the garden variety response to this opinion would probably be something along the lines of “okay that’s your view or taste or whatever other let’s agree to disagree expression or even agree”. I bet you that no one will call me a tribalist or racist (should they discover that I am actually white).

Now, what happens if I say “Swazi women have big bums and they steal other people’s husbands and to top it all, they have an insatiable sex drive”? Before you answer, let us consider the current brouhaha about Annelie Botes.

It is reported that Annelie does not like black people, doesn’t understand them and that she fears them. Is also reported that Annelie believes that black people are angry because of their incompetence; and that black people are responsible for the violent crime in South Africa. She is apparently waiting for her husband to go on pension so that they can both emigrate to England where her children are already living. I am intrigued by this but I will leave it at that because I am not the one who will have to deal with black people in England or the yobs for that matter.

The question for me is why is Annelie taking so much flak for her pretty much kak believes? She is probably wrong about a myriad of other things. I have not had an opportunity to read any of her books so I don’t have an insight of her other believes and fears. I don’t know the woman from the proverbial Eve. She probably believes that all black men have large penises too. So, she probably looks at black men with trepidation or relish, I don’t know. The thing is that Annelie looked around and formulated the views she expressed based on her observations. Moreso, she formulated views about which she can do nothing but pack for the land of Harry Potter.

Ok granted, she is wrong. So what? At least she is not wrong like Alan Greenspan whose error cost people their fucking homes. Fundamentally, Annelie does not hold views that are radically different from your garden variety white South African. She’s just not smart enough. The tricky thing about being wrong is that at that moment of wrongness, you are right, so I can’t even fault die ou tannie. I think that the poor tannie is taking so much flak from the sophisticated whites and the angry blacks because she is so easy. Just wait and soon she will be hauled before the equality court for hate speech or something similar to such crimes. She’s getting flak for the same reasons that motivate reporters to pursue people with strange eating habits. So what if I want to eat raw fish off the floor? Why is that anybody’s business? I will tell you why – it is because the real stories are just too damn hard.

Black people (whatever that means) do not need protection from statements that are naïve and stupid just like the Swazi women do not need protection from equally naïve albeit lustful statements. That Annelie is wrong does not make anybody else right, especially the commentators who jumped to repudiate if not crucify her. There seems to be undue fascination and interest in irrelevant nonsense. In the face of the untold amount of investment in whiteness, it is disingenuous to protest when whiteness seeks to express its supremacy, however clumsily it does it.

The story of Annalie Botes is not a story. It is a red-herring, a non-issue. It is as irrelevant as Gareth Cliff’s views on the mating habits of the Killarney Golf Club Egyptian geese.