You are on page 1of 13

Ivan Frimmel

BARRIERS TO A BETTER INTER-RACIAL UNDERSTANDING IN SA


October 2007

INTRODUCTION

Now, that the ‘black’ people’s liberation struggle in South Africa is finished for over a decade, and the
deplorable political & social system based on racial classifications called apartheid has been abolished and
racial discrimination outlawed in this country, one can see a rapid disappearance of most racial barriers and a
lively racial, ethnic and cultural interaction in all corners of our society. However, even now, a lot of old and
new racial beliefs, attitudes, tensions and practices are still hampering the progress towards a greater
understanding, respect, integration and co-operation among the many different races, ethnic groups and
nationalities of this ‘rainbow’ nation.

Although the majority of whites seem to be quite happy with the new, much more human & fair multiracial
and multicultural democratic political system in South Africa, the ancient, die-hard attitudes, prejudices and
stereotypes of some white racists seem to be still alive and well, albeit much less obvious & openly expressed,
and much more subtle & hidden from public scrutiny. Also, considering that the ‘non-white’ communities (as
they used to be called) are now for the first time enjoying political power previously denied to them, even
though most of them are admirably forgiving, tolerant, moderate and objective, the racist attitudes of some
individuals and groups from these communities keep manifesting themselves from time to time, quite openly,
everywhere –even in our government, including parliament—mainly towards the ‘whites’ but also towards the
members of ethnic groups different to their own—while pretending & claiming to be ‘colour-blind’.

Despite the fact that many books and articles have been written on this subject, there is still a lot of
misunderstanding and downright confusion among many people of all ages, professions, races and nationalities
in this country as to what exactly racism is, how it manifests itself, how to recognise it, how to argue against it
and how to combat it. Sadly, the word racist has been dished-out incorrectly, unjustifiably and much too
frequently to just about anybody of different race who does not agree with one’s opinions, or those of one’s
political party.

Many people in this country seem to be torn between the desire to maintain their racial, ethnic and cultural
identity and the general drift of the society towards greater unity, co-operation and integration with other
nationalities, races and ethnic groups – to the extent that some of them are afraid to openly speak or write
against the many ills that still plague our society, e.g. against corruption, nepotism, incompetence, crime and
injustice, and even against racism, for the fear of being politically incorrect, or labelled as racist.

Finally, as we have all been conditioned in one way or another, we all like to hold on to our cherished beliefs
and hardly ever question their validity; the racial stereotypes and myths that many of us still live by are often
laughable, offensive or despicable; old beliefs & habits die hard - and it might take some time before we
realise that many if not most of them are not based on any objective truths. In fact, total objectivity and
impartiality still seem to be very rare qualities for most people.

It is my intention to expose in this article—as clearly, accurately and objectively as I can—some of these
problems and dilemmas concerning the issue of racism in our country, to clarify some of the terms and
definitions regarding this issue, to dispel some of the racial myths and misconceptions we still live by… thus
to bring more objectivity into our dealings with others, and, hopefully, help to overcome some of the obstacles
that prevent greater understanding, respect, co-operation, compassion, harmony and peace among people of all
races.

1. RACIAL CONDITIONING, FEARS, PREJUDICES & STEREOTYPES

If we lack true, intimate, deep, first-hand, personal knowledge of people of other races, nationalities and
cultures, our knowledge about them will be probably only very superficial and often inaccurate: it will be
usually based on opinions rather than facts, influenced by the unexamined fears, prejudices and stereotypes of
our parents, teachers and peers (i.e. on our early conditioning) and invariably biased in favour of our own race,
culture, group and family. Once the seeds of such early prejudices take hold in our mind, we usually spend the
Page 1 of 13
rest of our life holding-on to them, conveniently allowing them to affect our judgements, attitudes and actions,
and constantly looking for examples to prove them right, hardly-ever rationally, objectively, dispassionately
examining their validity.

Occasionally, some rare, curious and brave individuals will step out of their familiar and comfortable
geographical, racial, ethnic, cultural, social, religious, ideological and psychological zones, overcome the
dislike and fear of ‘foreigners’ (xenophobia) and expose themselves to the adventures (pleasures and pains) of
racial and cultural interaction – to the adventures of ‘travelling’ across racial, cultural and social borders, into
other people’s “worlds”, “mind-sets”, “realities” or “universes”. Hopefully, sooner or later many will realise
how much they have in common with people that they considered strangers before, and that there are other,
equally workable ways of life, equally legitimate and valid—and different, if not much better—ways of
looking at the same issue. This will usually result in their greater understanding, acceptance and tolerance of
other people, races and cultures, often to the dismay of their peers who never took such a step.

Changing our conditioning is possible, but not easy. It requires above all:
• courage & honesty to question and examine one’s beliefs, opinions and actions;
• open-mindedness and desire to understand other people’s beliefs, opinions and actions;
• tolerance of other people’s beliefs, opinions and practices, especially those that significantly differ
from our own;
• commitment to discovering the truth, irrespective of what the truth may turn-out to be; i.e. the desire
to know facts, as opposed to just holding unquestioned & unexamined beliefs;
• objectivity, i.e. the ability to see all sides of an issue quite dispassionately, with detachment, without
any undue emotions or bias, or the need to feel superior over others;
• ability to think, communicate, reason and debate logically;
• willingness to change our ideas, beliefs and mind-sets, if proven wrong;
• honesty to think and speak the truth the way one sees it, but allowing for the possibility that tomorrow
a new evidence might be presented that will invalidate one’s today’s ‘truth’;
• compassion, kindness and goodwill towards all living beings.

2. MISUSE & ABUSE OF THE


WORDS RACISM & RACIST

The word racism, which could simply (i.e. without any emotional, political or moral connotations or ulterior
motives) mean: an objective, neutral and scientific belief that race accounts for differences in human
character or abilities, has now in common usage almost everywhere and always acquired the unwarranted,
expanded, political, emotive and derogatory meaning, namely: discrimination1 and prejudice2 based on race,
combined with the belief that one’s race is superior to others, and the manipulation or exploitation of another
race/s based on this belief.

While we generally accept and use racism in the second meaning above and continue using it in this
emotionally-loaded and derogatory sense, would it not make sense to be a bit more discerning and
start differentiating between the various degrees of this kind of definition of racism, especially when
accusing someone of racism or of being a racist, by more frequently, diligently and sensibly
combining the words racism and racist with an adjective, such as: ex-racist, closet racist, lukewarm
racist, confused racist, die-hard racist, hateful racist, militant racist, reprobate racist, irrational or
insane racist, would-be racist… and then, reserve the single word racist without any emotional
connotations or political aims, in its objective, neutral or scientific sense as defined before, i.e. as one
who simply believes that there are different races and differences between them – an objective,
unbiased, neutral believer in race differences, or an objective, neutral racist? Since the word racist

1
The word discrimination is quite neutral: it is not wrong or illegal to fairly or objectively discriminate against someone;
in fact it is absolutely essential for life; it is only wrong & unlawful to unfairly discriminate; thus only unfair
discrimination is prohibited by our new Constitution and should be avoided…
2
Prejudice (pre- judgment) could turn-out to be either true (e.g. a correct intuition), or false (erroneous belief)…
Page 2 of 13
managed to acquire only negative & highly subjective connotations, most people nowadays would,
unfortunately, reject such a suggestion.

We grew to believe that racist is a racist, and that all racists are bad people, just like a rapist is a rapist, without
any regard for the degrees of seriousness of the offence; but for the sake of better understanding among people,
when we make such serious accusations as to call someone a racist, as I said above, we should be a bit less
linguistically lazy and more discerning in describing the kind of racist such person is –as we distinguish
between a petty thief (e.g. a shoplifter) and a dangerous thief (e.g. an armed bank robber)— and to allow some
room for the difference between a harmless, lukewarm, non-extremist racist and a militant, extremist,
dangerous one - like we tend to be more benevolent in distinguishing between a proud nationalist and an
extreme, militant nationalist…

The other interesting thing to consider here is that nobody ever defines as racist someone who thinks or feels
that his own race is inferior to others, and tries to manipulate or exploit others by eliciting sympathy towards
his race, by claiming to be a victim of some unseen racial exploitation. We can see many examples of such
belief and behaviour, which should, in my opinion, also be called racist.

Conversely, we would never call a racist someone who is praising another race as being superior to his own,
even though by doing so, he is also implying the superiority of one race over another, and thus should be called
a racist, too.

Regarding our attitudes towards human races, there may be a reasonably good word, i.e. egalitarian
(from French égalité, meaning equality) to denote someone who affirms and promotes the belief that since
all human beings have common ancestry, there is only one race, namely human race, and therefore all
people are equal, and deserve equal political, economic, social and civil rights (called ‘human rights’).

However, unfortunately, today there does not seem to be any word, apart from the highly inappropriate and
derogatory word racist, for denoting:

• someone quite neutral, objective and realistic, who, in agreement with reality and some (less
politically-correct) anthropologists believes that since human beings differ genetically, physically,
linguistically, culturally… from each other in as many, or more, aspects as they have in common,
there are many different “races”,“ local races”, “tribes”, “ethnic groups”… and that these
differences should be acknowledged, respected and encouraged, without the need or desire to use these
differences for making oneself or one’s race superior, or for exploitation of other races? Non-
egalitarian? Pluralist? Realist?

• someone who quite realistically and rationally believes that irrespective of whether there is only one
race or many races, irrespective of whether there are any significant physical or character differences
between races, all people should be treated on merit, on the basis of their abilities, character,
behaviour and performance? Perhaps Meritocrat?

There are many people with beliefs and attitudes like these. Calling such a person glibly a racist (in the
derogatory sense of that world), without first establishing whether he harbours any antagonistic thoughts or
feelings towards another race or is praising another race as being superior, or uses his true observations and
scientific data about another race to feel superior to ALL or MOST members of another race or just few
specific individuals, or whether he wishes to dominate or oppress another person on the strength of his belief
in his own or his group’s racial superiority… is a mistake that is commonly propagated in all strata of our
society today, from the city and country bars and shebeens, through our classrooms, factories, offices,
newspapers, magazines, radio and TV, to our allegedly non-racist parliament…

I also think that in too many instances we glibly use the word racist when overly critical person, snob, bigot or
exploiter of others would be quite sufficient, more appropriate and much less derogatory than the word racist
nowadays.

Page 3 of 13
Therefore I suggest that instead of so incorrectly, lazily and inappropriately, or downright maliciously, using
the word racism & racist as outlined above, which only further propagates and aggravates racism, whenever
appropriate and applicable we should consider using the following words as alternatives, mostly devoid of the
usual overly-derogatory & offensive meaning associated nowadays with the words racism and racis, e.g.
:
• non-egalitarian - someone who is aware of similarities as well as differences between individuals and
ethnic, religious, racial and cultural groups;
• meritocrat - someone who believes people should be treated on merit, rather than on the basis of their
racial, political, religious or family affiliations;
• overly critical person – one who is by nature more critical than others; not every criticism (justified
or not) directed towards a member of another race is a racist remark, or based on a racial prejudice;
• snob – someone who has an exaggerated respect for social position, status, intellect, or wealth, or
who despises those he considers to have inferior position or tastes;
• bigot – one who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race and intolerant of those who
differ;
• exploiter – one who exploits others for his own selfish motives & benefits…

As I implied before, I believe that we should try and reserve the word racist as an emotionally neutral or
scientific term for those people who believe that there are different races and genuine race-specific differences
among people (some differences in favour of a specific race, some not); and for those people who use racism
for exploiting, denigrating or unfairly discriminating against other races, use the following word-pairs
indicating the kind or racist or degree of racism we are dealing with: closet racist, lukewarm racist, confused
racist, die-hard racist, hateful racist, militant racist, reprobate racist, irrational or insane racist, would-be
racist… as previously suggested, or even: racial snob, racial bigot, racial exploiter – not just use racist alone,
without any further qualification, elaboration or explanation, as if there was only one kind or racist and racism.

It is worth pointing-out that calling someone a white racist or black racist already indicates racism, and that
many people who label others only too happily, readily, glibly and indiscriminately as racist are either
projecting their own racist attitudes and perhaps hiding their own racist agendas, or just being linguistically
inadequate or lazy… just like saying that someone should not be judgemental is a sure sign of being
judgemental oneself, namely judging another as being judgemental.

What I am trying to say above is that since there are many different kinds of ‘racists’ and degrees of ‘racism’,
not all of them equally dangerous or deplorable, we should use these words with more care and sensitivity.

I believe that by using the word racist more carefully, sensitively, rationally and appropriately, by substituting
racist with more appropriate and less emotionally-loaded words whenever applicable, and by properly
qualifying what kind of racist a person or his beliefs are, we could go a long way towards eliminating barriers
to better mutual understanding among the people of South Africa – and slowly moving away from misusing
the words racist and racism, and from creating further racial tensions by abusing others with these words...

3. OUR LOGICAL AND REASONING DIFFERENCES & INEPTITUDES

Reasoning ineptitude and lack of proper logical and debating skills, so common in all groups, is another great
obstacle in the way of better inter-racial relations.

Those of us who were educated in the so-called Western tradition were led to admire its ideological forefathers,
the Greeks, and to believe that there is only one way to reason, argue and debate, namely the way of the Greek
philosophers, and only one type of logic, namely Aristotelian logic (e.g. the Law of Identity: A=A; A cannot be

Page 4 of 13
non-A). Abstract thinking, logical reasoning and convincing arguing in the tradition of Greek philosophers has
become the profession of few, the hobby of many, and the main source of arrogance for multitudes.

Most of us who were brought-up in this Western tradition will fancy ourselves to be perfectly rational,
reasonable, smart and logical people, believe that most of our arguments are perfectly sound and convincing
most of the time, think that majority of our ideas are true (facts) and that through reason alone we can figure-
out the answer to just about all question under the sun…

We usually become very surprised and confused when others come-up with ideas that diametrically oppose
ours, or reason in a way that we are not familiar with, or if our reason is not providing us with all the answers
we seek.

Studying Zen Buddhism and working with some Chinese, Taiwanese and Malaysian people in South Africa for
over 12 years now convinced me that many of these people operate (and quite successfully, I must add) with a
totally different kind of logic to the (Western, Aristotelian) logic I have been exclusively exposed to, used, and
considered the only (workable) logic until then. I found through my personal encounters with these people that,
in line with the ancient Taoist and Confucian teachings, the Orientals use a kind of ‘holistic’ logic that allows
them to hold two seemingly opposing views in their mind in perfect harmony, seeing them as complementary
rather then opposites – something that would throw a typical ‘Westerner’ into a tremendous confusion.

Below are listed some of the most common basic human errors & logical fallacies many people of all cultures,
Eastern and Western, make in their thinking, reasoning and debating:
• we use generalisations carelessly (all or many instead of some; many instead of few);
• we like to polarize issues glibly (them and us);
• we do not always realise that there is a huge difference between opinion and fact. Fact, by definition,
must be true; opinions can be either true, or false. When arguing and debating, we should always
support our opinions and arguments by facts, rather than merely by our opinions, guesses, or feelings;
• we don’t realise that people’s arguments may be very persuasive and even logically valid, and yet
untrue, if the premises are not based on facts;
• we tend to generalise too easily; for example, we use the word all, when the statement applies only to
some, few, or many… (e.g. statement like “All African people are poor” may or may not be meant to
be racist, offensive or derogatory, but it is totally false; similarly, “All Indian people are good
traders” may be your opinion, but is not a fact; many would be more appropriate in both instances);
or use always instead too many times instead of just often, sometimes or seldom;
• we are usually not very good listeners and don’t give their ‘opponent’ enough chance to explain his or
her point of view;
• we tend to appeal to people’s emotions, rather than reason;
• we attack the speaker and his character, personality or looks, instead of his ideas...

We could all benefit greatly by learning more about the art of effective listening, logical reasoning, proper
debating and credible persuasion and by accumulating the kind of facts that can prove the points we are trying
to make, for example facts about other people’s cultures, achievements, similarities, differences - and about
scientific human classification.

4. CONFUSION ABOUT RACE & HUMAN CLASSIFICATON

Apart from those who don’t care a damn and those who already took the trouble to find out, many people of all
races, ethnic groups and nationalities living in South Africa today are very confused about what race actually
means - and thus about their own racial identity. This confusion is one of the many obstacles to racial
understanding and tolerance, fertile ground for many racial myths and a source of great anxiety for many
individuals.

One important aspect of human intelligence and psychological normality is the ability to use appropriate
definitions, categories and classifications of the words and concepts we use, to see their similarities and
differences and to base such definitions and differentiations on reality, rather than on our cherished beliefs,
myths or delusions.
Page 5 of 13
Most people in post-apartheid South Africa will know and agree by now that the apartheid classification of
human race into ‘whites’ and ‘non-whites’ (or whites, blacks and coloureds) was too simplistic, non-scientific
and unfair. It may also still surprise many, even well-educated people, to hear that even the more ‘scientific’
classification of human race into 3 races, namely Caucasian (white), Negroid (black), Asian (yellow), that was
widely used at one time (for a couple of centuries) is also too simplistic and inaccurate to be useful for
anything more than simple studies and conversations.

Today, although many anthropologists (those whose desire to be politically correct overrides the need for
practicality) believe and claim there is only one race - human race, and would like to deny that there is such a
‘thing’ as—or need for classifying people into—many human races, many anthropologists still distinguish
between larger and smaller population units or groups called geographical and local races, in which the group
members are more closely related to each other by geographical location, blood group, genetic and other
physical, cultural and linguistic similarities.

It is widely accepted among anthropologists today that the human ‘race’ (or rather human species) consists of
some 9-10 main geographical races, namely
• African or Negroid (or Negro);
• Asian or Mongoloid;
• European or Caucasoid;
• American Indian or American Mongoloid;
• Australian Aborigine or Australoid;
• Indian;
• Polynesian;
• Melanesian;
• Hottentot;
each with their own distinguishable group characteristics, and many more local races and ethnic groups
(tribes). We can separate these geographical races into distinct groups because of natural barriers, such as
oceans, deserts, mountain ranges… which resulted in certain distinct genetic features, customs, habits and
languages. Local races (or rather ethnic groups or tribes) are sub-divisions of such geographical races.

So, there is really no such race as a white race, or a black race (or a Jewish or Chinese race for that matter),
and in order to avoid further polarization, identification and classification of people along the old racial lines,
or even along the simplistic and outdated 3-racial anthropological classification (Caucasian, Negroid & Asian),
we should minimise the use of words white, black and coloured in our language when referring to people’s
racial and ethnic identity, and reserve these words for describing a person’s skin colour only, not race. If such
identification is necessary, relevant or interesting, then we should either put such words into inverted commas
(implying so-called), or, if necessary or relevant, rather identify people according to their true race, in
accordance with the modern anthropological race classification, as listed above.

The racial classification is obviously quite distinct from one’s nationality (South African, Zimbabwean,
Ethiopian, Indian…), ethnic group (Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Gujarati…), religion (Jew, Moslem, Hindu…),
language (English, French, German…), etc, although in some instances (African, Asian, European, Indian…)
the name of one’s race is the same as the name of one’s nationality, or continent.

Thus, for example, a person of European race, born or naturalised in South Africa, and his descendants, should
be properly called European (or Caucasian) South African – and in no way African, unless he makes it clear
that he/she wishes to identify him/herself with the whole African continent. Otherwise he or she may be
mistaken (under the influence of the American usage of the term African) for being of black colour…

Also, for example, a Chinese-speaking person of Asian race born in Taiwan, now naturalised in South Africa,
should be described as Asian South African or South African Asian (and, if necessary, Chinese-speaking,
Taiwan-born) …

Page 6 of 13
When it comes to “black” people, the American common usage of African American—as easy as it is to
understand that the American refers to his nationality, and the African to his race—confuses and complicates
the whole issue for us living in Africa…

A person of the so-called black race (properly called the African or Negroid race), of South African nationality
would be African or Negroid South African; if he/she was born in Nigeria, he/she should be called African (or
Negroid) Nigerian, or Nigerian African or Nigerian Negro (i.e. Negro derived from black, in Portuguese or
Spanish); here it is quite obvious which term refers to his/her nationality, and which one to his/her race or
continent, but, unfortunately, in Africa it is not clear at all if the African refers to his/her race or continent - and
therefore the description Nigerian Negro would be more appropriate…

Of course, the term “nigger” would remain derogatory (except in the African American slang, as a ‘term of
endearment’ among their own ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’)… and not to be confused with the term Negro—although
similar in sound and spelling—meaning quite inoffensively a member of the Negroid / African race.

To avoid confusion, only a ‘black’ person either born in Africa, or of black African descendants in other
countries (a member of African / Negroid race) can properly call himself African (by race) - if he was born in
South Africa, African South African (African by race and South African by birth, naturalization or permanent
residence); if he was born or naturalised in America, African American (African by race, American by birth,
nationality or permanent residence)...

Such classifications, whether we like it or not and whether they are politically correct or not, are here to stay
for many practical reasons, e.g. for easier communication and police work in criminal identification, academic
research, studies & work (i.e. in anthropology, sociology, psychology, medicine...), more accurate description
of a person, better journalism, etc. – as long as they are used sensitively & discerningly, i.e. without any
malicious intent.

At one stage a South African journalist, Max du Preez, used to call himself an African. If such an intelligent
person as Max du Preez, clearly an European (or Caucasian) South African, is so confused about the race he
belongs to, no wonder that other, less sophisticated people (of all races) are confused about this issue, too, and
thus many people of ALL races are considering themselves to be African – thus terribly confusing the issue…
Notwithstanding the (so far rather unsuccessful) political attempts at African Union, I believe Max further
confused the whole racial identity issue in South Africa by starting here a trend already prevalent in Australia
and only to a much lesser extent in Europe and Asia of identifying people with the continent they live on,
rather than the race and nationality they belong to…

As far as I know, so far there is no such political entity, identity or term yet—only a sentimental one—as
African referring to one’s affiliation to or identification with the whole continent of Africa – using such a term
would not make it clear whether the person using it is describing his continental affiliation or race - and thus
create unnecessary confusion and misunderstandings...

In order to bring greater understanding, peace, harmony and co-operation between all groups in South Africa,
and also for the sake of one’s own intellectual, psychological and moral integrity, all statements about race
classifications should be based on scientifically proven facts, inoffensive to the members of any race, and
devoid of any gross generalisations that would make any one race think or feel superior or inferior to another.

5. OUR PERSONAL IDENTITY, PARTIALITY AND LACK OF OBJECTIVITY

We all seem to have the need to identify ourselves with something - and we tend to believe that we are what
we think we are.

To enhance our chances of survival, we identify ‘my self’ with my body, mind, emotions, name, possessions,
country, continent, nation, family, political party, religious beliefs, favoured soccer or rugby team, profession,
gender, colour, race, tribe, customs, etc. and as I said above, often with a particular continent - or some, more
enlightened souls, prefer to call themselves citizens of the world…

Page 7 of 13
On this (material, mundane, worldly) level of identification we are often prepared to live, fight and die for
what we identify with. The stronger our identifications – the more closed, intolerant and militant we are
towards people of different background, nationality, race, colour, customs and opinions, i.e. towards people of
different identifications, especially if they seem to threaten our beliefs and status quo, and the stronger our
resistance towards integration into greater units.

The question ‘Who am I, really?’ is the most profound question one can ever ask oneself. Asking this question
sincerely and persistently can lead us towards discovering our true, spiritual, transcendental identity, way
beyond our habitual mundane, worldly identifications. The conclusion that “I am not my name, body, mind,
emotion, race, tribe, beliefs… I am an everlasting, divine Spirit or Soul” may seem to be very strange to most
(materialistic, non-spiritual) people, and yet, it may prove to be our most important hope towards greater
understanding, harmony, objectivity and unity among people.

It is only when one can distance or detach oneself from one’s total identification with one’s
• name (realise that “I am not my name - my name has been given to me at birth”);
• body (size, shape, colour, gender… “I am fat”, “I am a man”…);
• mind (its abilities, e.g. intelligence, memories, imaginings, past events & beliefs, e.g. “I am clever”,
“I am stupid”, “I am a victim of impoverished childhood, apartheid, or rape…”);
• emotions (love, hate, anger, lust, greed e.g. “I am always depressed and unhappy”…);
• nationality (“I am a typical Englishman”…);
• race (“I am black”, “I am white”…);
• clothes and other material possessions (“I am a Gucci woman”…);
• political party or even one’s religion (“I am a communist”, “I am a Catholic”…)
and all the other subjective and transitory ideas one has about who he or she is, only then one can be said to be
truly non-subjective, impersonal, impartial, objective, enlightened. It is only on this deeper level that we can
find our true identity, objectivity, unity (unity in diversity) and enlightenment.

Even though a total objectivity, impersonality and impartiality still appears to be only a pipe-dream to most
people, it is an ideal worth striving for, not just by the judges and juries of this world, but by each individual
who is interested in greater understanding, tolerance, unity, peace and harmony among people. A truly
objective person is an enlightened person.

The essence of African renaissance should be in being comfortable with the paradox of finding the unity
among all racial, ethnic and cultural diversity—the unity in One Universal Spirit—and thus discovering total
objectivity, universality and enlightenment, not just a partial one based on one’s false sense of separation from
the Universe.

6. OUR RATIONALISATIONS & PROJECTIONS

One of the problems that plague many individuals and prevent greater understanding among people are the two
psychological defence mechanisms called rationalization and projection:
• rationalization – an explanation, not always based on facts, of one’s own motives and behaviour,
which has been selected from many possible explanations primarily because it enhances and defends
the ideas one has about oneself (one’s self- structure, or ego);
• projection – the tendency to believe that another person has motives, feelings, wishes, values or traits
that the individual himself has - and often is not aware of, cannot acknowledge or accept.

The ability to perceive the world (including oneself and other people) accurately is an achievement that is
relatively difficult to attain, unless one is willing and able to reality-test one’s perceptions. The autistic child,
the regressed psychotic, the religious or political fanatic, and the racist - in fact, most primitive or
psychologically immature people have the tendency to perceive the world in a primitive fashion. They will use
all kinds of defence mechanisms, including rationalizations and projections, to maintain their beliefs, no matter
how untrue, unrealistic or unhealthy such beliefs may be. Only psychologically healthy children as well as all
intelligent, open-minded adults will be interested in constantly testing, adjusting and improving their
assumptions about life and people.

Page 8 of 13
If a person erroneously assumes that someone else is similar to himself, the term assimilative projection is
used to describe such an assumption. If the person erroneously assumes that someone else has the kind of
motives, thoughts or feelings that he denied or repressed in himself, the term disowning projection is used.

Projections and rationalizations—whether they are genuine errors in one’s perceptions, inaccuracies of
knowledge, defence mechanism, sign of impaired ego-strength, or logical fallacies—usually refer to the act of
formulating beliefs about another person’s or group’s motives and feelings without adequate evidence.

One can suspect that projections or rationalizations are guiding the motives and actions of another person if:
• the motives imputed by him to others are derogatory or immoral;
• such motives are vigorously denied by him;
• there is not much evidence to support that his claims are true;
• there is some evidence that he possesses the projected motives, but on an unconscious level.

Bigoted people appear to base many of their beliefs about the shortcomings of other’s racial, ethnic or religious
groups on disowning projection. They perceive themselves and their fellow members as free from the
shortcomings or undesirable traits they ascribe to the members of another group, and will strongly resist the
suggestion that they may possess any of these shortcomings or traits, although at an unconscious level - and if
they wish to be more healthy and happy in life - they should seek some counselling to help them overcome
their bigotry.

One can only know for sure if another person is projecting and rationalizing his own motives if one knows the
facts of the situation and about the other person reasonably well. Once again, the knowledge of facts, including
the facts about the people we are trying to describe, is an important factor contributing towards better inter-
personal and inter-racial relationships.

7. THINKING & TALKING VERSUS ACTION

We have two kinds of knowledge of reality: intimate and symbolic. It is always helpful to realise and
frequently remind ourselves and others that our perceptions, thoughts and communications about reality are
usually only its symbolic representations – and hardly ever direct and intimate. Korzybski, the father of
modern semantics explained this insight by describing what he called the ‘map-territory’ relationship. The
‘territory’ is the world-process in its actuality, while a ‘map’ is a symbolic notation that represents or signifies
some aspect of the territory.

The obvious point here is that the ‘map’ is not the ‘territory’, i.e. that the words, concepts and categories we
use in describing our ideas about (and experiences of) reality and its apparent divisions and similarities do not
really exactly correspond to and cannot really fully describe the things, experiences, divisions and similarities
that we are describing. In other words, the word is not the thing itself. For example, it is obvious that the word
water will never satisfy your thirst, just like reading cookery books will never satisfy your hunger for food, or
reading books and watching movies about love will never fully satisfy your hunger for love...

And yet, many well-meaning and well-educated people make the mistake of confusing the ‘maps’ with the
‘territory’.

Many sincere people have used some ‘maps’ (models, thought systems) like the Bible, Koran, Bhaghavad Gita,
Constitution, Communist Manifesto, Mao’s Little Red Book, Mein Kampf, etc. in order to describe some noble
philosophical, social, political or religious ideal, reality or truth, such as unity, objectivity, enlightenment, etc. -
and somewhere along the line got totally fascinated by and lost within the maps (their books, schools,
religions, rituals, political dogmas and speeches), without ever finding the actual territory they originally
intended to describe, find and materialise. Very often, their search, if not followed by appropriate action, leads
them further away from—not closer to—the ideal which they were describing and seeking.

All symbolic knowledge—all of our memory, thinking and communication—is dualistic, indirect, approximate
and therefore imperfect, and at best can serve us only as a guide, recipe, and ideal to follow. It is only through
our actions, through our many trials and errors, that we can prove whether our theories were correct. There is

Page 9 of 13
no substitute for thinking, but it is only through effective and productive action that one can bring one’s ideals
and theories into reality.

If it is bread we need, we cannot satisfy our hunger by thinking, talking or making speeches about bread. Once
we find the recipe, we have to realize that we cannot eat the recipe, and we must roll-up our sleeves and start
baking the bread we want - or go out & get it somewhere, somehow.

8. DESIRE TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT RATHER THAN AUTHENTIC

Today, in their desire to be politically correct, many people, at least on the surface, choose to exaggerate their
beliefs in equality, and tend to underplay our cultural, educational, racial and ethnic differences. They try to
artificially force cultural, racial and ethnic integration wherever possible, and in the process sacrifice many of
the cultural, ethnic and racial beliefs and beautiful traditions that make our nation so colourful and their own
ethnic and individual authenticity.

This is equally true among


• many ‘whites’ who may feel ashamed and guilty for all the discrimination, abuse and downright
cruelty that was perpetuated by their own race under the name of slavery, colonisation and apartheid;
whites who think that paying lip service to racial equality, without really changing their heart, may
bring them some material benefits, advantages and favours from the ruling party, which is
predominantly ‘black’ in this country;
• as well as many ‘blacks’, who would really prefer to be white, look like white, think like white, act
like white, or at least enjoy the same benefits the whites still in many cases do…

Theoretically, the ‘coloureds’ (various mixtures of ‘white’ and ‘black’, as previously called) should now, in the
new, post-apartheid South Africa, enjoy the best of both worlds, but in practice it is hardly so. As a group, they
are suffering from an identity crisis even worse than that experienced by most ‘whites’ and ‘blacks’. However,
it is from this group the other groups could probably learn most about coping with and integrating racial
ambiguity and about racial tolerance.

There is nothing complicated or politically (or anthropologically) incorrect about the proper use of racial
distinction. The political incorrectness creeps in when racial identification or distinction is used for promoting
a sense of superiority of one’s own race; for gaining personal, business or political advantage over another
person or group; for manipulation, domination, discrimination, abuse or oppression of another individual or
group.

Some Questions to Ponder Concerning Racism & Discrimination


1. Some trustworthy sources, including some TV programs, tell us that black University students, in general, seem to be much worse
at 3-D technical drawing and highly analytical logical reasoning, than white students. Let’s keep it simple and assume that these
statements are true and can be proven as such. Would you accuse the media, or me, of racism and unfair discrimination for believing
and telling such (true) things, even if the media (or me) did not intend to imply that all black students are worse than, or inferior to,
white students in all subjects, and did not intend to use this example as a proof of inferiority of the whole ‘black’ race, just stating
plain facts about these specific subjects? You should not.

2. Would I be accused of racism and racial discrimination if I expressed my belief that black people are superior to whites in short or
long distance running, boxing or dancing, or would you label it as a fair discrimination? I probably would not be, at least not by
black people; in fact my comments would be probably appreciated by most black people, and considered to be offensive, untrue or
racist only by some whites, those who think my facts are not really straight.

3. Would my ‘white’ German friend Rolf be accused of racism for his firm convictions and statements that white women are by far
inferior in beauty and sex-appeal to black women? Would a black person be accused of racial prejudice if he/she made the same
statements? In both cases most probably no.

4. Would a black person be accused of racism if he/she tried to convince a white person that black people are not just equal, but
superior to whites in many, if not all aspects? He probably would not, at least not by his own race. ‘Black racism’ seems to be
slightly more acceptable & prevalent in the world nowadays than ‘white racism’…

Page 10 of 13
5. Is there such thing as fair discrimination, i.e. discrimination based on indubitable facts? I think there is, and that it is not wrong.
Fair & true discrimination (evaluation, judging, estimation…) is a necessary part of concept forming and communication, and
essential for survival. Our Constitution only outlaws unfair discrimination.

9. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION & INTELLECTUAL SNOBBERY

Because the educational standard of majority of people in this country is still below Grade 10-12, and a great
portion of our population is still illiterate, intellectual snobbery and arrogance among those who possess any
kind of education above matric is still quite prevalent in all communities - and in many cases the cause of
much friction in the workplace.

Placing people of ‘previously disadvantaged’ groups into jobs for which they have either no academic
qualification or work experience, oftentimes above someone from the ‘previously privileged’ group who has
higher qualification and greater experience (under the well-meant bur racist policy of Affirmative Action and
Equal Equity, which is supposed to overcome the racial inequalities and tensions of the past) is frequently
causing new racial tensions and disputes, often resulting in much unhappiness among the “newly
disadvantaged” or “unfairly discriminated against” individuals and groups, and some arbitration and legal
actions.

Of course, everybody will agree that knowledge and learning are very important for survival and progress in
life, and that one should be proud of one’s education. However, few people realise that because knowledge is
power it can be used for good and bad, including for the manipulation and exploitation of others (as in slavery,
colonialism, Nazism, communism, apartheid, etc.). Even fewer will admit that they have been consciously or
unconsciously using their knowledge and education for such evil purposes. One should be constantly aware of
such possibility in oneself and others and of the limits of knowledge in general and one’s own learning in
particular.

One should temper one’s knowledge with humility, wisdom and high moral principles, so that one does not
become arrogant and conceited, or use one’s knowledge and position for any illegal, immoral or evil purposes -
or allow another to do so.

History is full of examples of what failed in the past and therefore what we should try to avoid in the future.
And—if we are really as smart as we think we are—we should learn from our own past mistakes and the
mistakes of others and, without dwelling too much on the past, try to avoid making the same or similar
mistakes in the future.

10. LOOKING BACKWARD


INSTEAD OF FORWARD

The older we get the more we tend to dwell on the past, whether reminiscing about the “good old days”, or
worrying and feeling guilty about all the unpleasant experiences we have not been able to come to terms with -
as opposed to looking forward towards the future. For the youth the future usually seems to be very bright
indeed - as one gets older, the past seems to be getting brighter and the future dimmer.

Many ‘whites’ in this country are still talking with great nostalgia about the “good old apartheid days”
(meaning the days when the ‘white’ people were in power and the ‘non-whites’ were deprived of power),
knowing very well that the apartheid system (like its predecessor, slavery) was morally wrong and unfair,
rationally indefensible and unjustifiable, and politically untenable – and that there is no hope in hell or heaven
that such system will ever come back anywhere in the world. Many ‘whites’ are still sitting on the fence,
watching the words and actions of the so-called ‘black government’ and hoping that the new government will
make mistakes which can ‘prove’ that the ‘white’ peoples’ prejudices, resistance towards ‘black’ government
and predictions of doom were justified, that ‘the Bantus’ cannot govern themselves… instead of welcoming the

Page 11 of 13
inevitable changes, adapting to the more human society we live in now, appreciating the smooth and peaceful
transition and working towards better future together with the other races.

On the other hand, how many ‘blacks’ in this country still believe that Africa would be far better off without
the ‘whites’ altogether and without the so-called civilisation the ‘whites’ brought with them – as if it was still
possible to undo the past, as if they do not really like to enjoy the material & technological benefits and
comforts the ‘white civilisation’ brought with it… Many ‘blacks’ are still harbouring the same old sentiments,
resentments and hatreds towards ‘all whites’, based on the past injustices and cruelties perpetuated by some,
but not all ‘white’ people, and blaming all kinds of societal and political problems on colonialism and
apartheid… By dwelling on the past and using it as a weapon against the ‘whites’ in the present, many ‘blacks’
are now inventing and promoting their own, new brand of ‘black racism’ and ‘reverse discrimination’.

How many of us, ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’, realise that although we cannot change the realities of the past
anymore, we can change our thoughts and feelings about it, especially our erroneous opinions, irrational fears,
unhelpful resentments and bitter racial prejudices?

How many of us realise that the only time we can live in is the present and that only by changing our present
thoughts, beliefs and attitudes we can change the future – and that the way towards greater personal and social
progress, health, happiness and prosperity is by changing our current thoughts and attitudes?

It is our past actions that brought about our present experience - and it is only through our present actions that
we can change the future. Today is the beginning of the rest of our life; if we don’t like our present situation,
instead of looking too much into the past, which we cannot change, by changing our present thoughts, feelings
and actions we can determine our future.

11. OUR LACK OF MUTUAL TRUST, TOLERANCE & COMPASSION

It is sad but true that many people trust and love nobody, except themselves (or God, if they are religious) and
maybe one or two other people close to them. Many people who profess to be tolerant are tolerant of everyone,
except those ‘terrible and intolerant’ people who do not agree with their beliefs and opinions. Many people
have much more compassion towards the suffering of animals than towards the problems and suffering of other
human beings.

Apart from some of the reasons stated above, this lack of basic trust, tolerance and compassion among people
is, in my opinion, one of the greatest obstacles in overcoming racial tensions and prejudices, in establishing
true progress, peace and harmony among all people. Unfortunately, for every couple of thousand people of
goodwill, who are striving and working towards such noble ideals, there are few others who operate in this
world without any such high ideals or moral principles, who, by perpetuating evil actions such as rape, murder,
theft… confirm and strengthen the belief that human nature is evil, that people (especially of other races)
cannot be trusted and that our future is bleak indeed.

CONCLUSION

The miracle of the peaceful transformation from apartheid to democracy that South Africa is going through is
watched by the whole world. Let’s hope that despite the many obstacles we still have to overcome, especially
changing the beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of die-hard racists and anti-social and criminal elements opposing
and slowing down the progress of this society, we are sooner or later going to prove the pessimists and
prophets of doom wrong, and create a model society, where many different racial, religious, ethnic and cultural
groups can live and work together in peace, unity, harmony and safety.
Page 12 of 13
Page 13 of 13

You might also like