Response to Pierre de Vos article on Discovery Bank's racist share scheme

This is a response I wrote to a Pierre de Vos article defending Discovery's scheme. Unfortunately the Biznews mods haven't approved my post. Maybe it isn't ragebaitey enough?

Pierre, I think I can answer your first question. The reason so few people who hold one set of views but not another that superficially resembles those, is that different principles are at work. None of these people are denying that race or other foci of identities exist. What they/we object to is codifying the mere existence of those foci into inequality before the law. I think you simply misinterpret an admittedly sometimes poorly expressed objection: we oppose race-based redress measure not literally "because it requires racial classification", but because of what use that classification undeniably is intended to be put to: creating inequality of opportunity, by treating people differently before the law.

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "construct" or "anything essential", but I believe you are mistaken to say that race, gender, or sexual orientation are "constructs and do not say anything essential about who we are as individuals". Or at least, they are not only constructs. What is a construct is how much these categories should matter in various contexts.

On to the meat of your article: you are a constitutional law expert and I am not, so obviously I must defer to your legal analysis. But I need not defer to your moral analysis. What you have convinced me of with this article is not that Discovery's share scheme is just, but that SA's constitution as written (or maybe only as interpreted in the tests it has been put to?) is contaminated by ideas I want as far away from me as possible. I used to think that the constitution is "basically okay, in no need of repair or other tinkering", but now my view is changed, if it (or maybe rather its interpretation) approves of the unequal treatment before the law of people based only on superficial identity differences. Andile Ramaphosa (Cyril's eldest son) must be in the top 100 of privileged people in this country, but merely because he is black he should attract even more privileges wherever he goes, being able to step into jobs or win tenders or pursue academic qualifications, opportunities which are closed to me merely because my skin is white, even though my net worth is maybe a thousandth of Andile's? If you cannot see that this is obviously not right, then I don't know how to persuade you. Perhaps you will point out that the "overwhelming majority" of prospective Discovery Bank clients are not Andile Ramaphosas. But how exactly are Andile, and more broadly black members of the middle and upper class, discriminated against today? Which opportunities are denied to them because they are black? Where are they denied respect in ways that giving them free shares will remedy? How does this compare to the opportunities denied to white youngsters born after 1994, who get told they are "not demographically representative" and can't have this job / can't go to medical school / can't win a tender?

Perhaps I should leave my disagreement here: "You do not have to show that the scheme is necessary to achieve the redress goal, but only that the measure must be reasonably capable of achieving the desired outcome of redress." I wonder if it may turn out that Discovery know something about black consumers' financial habits that they can't afford to talk about publicly. Something that, were it more widely known (or admitted), would undermine the condition that this scheme be "reasonably capable of achieving the desired outcome." Time will tell, but don't say I didn't warn you if in 5 years you squawk about Discovery "oppressing" its black customers through higher interest rates on loans or something like that. Without ever explicitly having to base that credit decision on race.

Malemagate - some contradictory thoughts

My opinion of Julus Malema is mixed. I abhor the interests he is willing to sacrifice in his quest to the top, but I can only admire how he strategically pursues his. The fact that his interests differ from or even oppose mine, does not mean that he is "stupid", as many seem to think. That he flunked woodwork in high school means that he flunked woodwork in high school, not that he is incapable of making something out of himself. Anyone who doubts that he has made something out of himself, should please explain how this man is able to afford the Breitling watches and other trappings of material wealth, as well as the political influence, that he seems to enjoy.

The meaning of a message is the response it elicits

If there's one thing you need to know about NLP it is this. I find it somewhat arrogant to suggest that the entire meaning of a message can ever be embedded in only its form and medium. We say that jokes are funny not only because there is something inherently funny about their words, but because we laugh at them. When most of an audience misunderstands a message, it is not the audience that is "wrong" or "stupid", but the message that is inadequate. Accepting this tenet of communication frames the problem as a pragmatic, empirical one, where outcomes are more important than intentions. This is how it should be, if you care about getting what you want.

When Julius Malema sings Shoot the Boer, it means exactly the reaction it's getting: fearful white people making a brouhaha, Afriforum taking him to court, the ANC retreating into their afro-laager crying foul over the legal challenges. Malema is finally in a spot of trouble, so part of the meaning of this song, when he sings it, is, "I'm scared. Please help me by showing solidarity with me. Here's a pro forma enemy for you to use as an excuse." (This is now. I believe he has been singing this stupid "song" for longer than he's been in the poo.)

I don't treat seriously any suggestions that when Julius sings this so-called song, he intends literally to command members of his audience to go out and shoot people. I don't even take seriously the suggestion that any members of his audience interpret it as that, let alone being likely to execute its instruction. It's far more fun just to freak these white people out. Always them and their white tendency to fear the nag van die lang messe (night of the long knives).

The 48 laws of power

Read this book if you want to recognize Juju's master plan. He wants to be president, and if we keep reacting to him the way we are, he's going to get there.

Remember those armed bodyguards walking him to the Cape High Court? That was spectacle (Law 6, Law 37) from the sop shelf. Afriforum? Law 2 (learn how to use enemies). Getting others to keep him in the news with lawsuits etc.: Law 21 (play dumber than your mark). Coming up with some new scandalous thing apparently every month, and having everyone react to that: Law 31 (get others to play with the cards you deal). And when he calls for nationalizing mines? I bet that's just Law 45 (preach the need for change, but never reform too much at once).

But I think there's a law that Julius forgot about: Law 1 - Never outshine the master. He went too far when he muttered something about regime change in Botswana. Time will now tell if he, or Jacob Zuma, will pay the price.

Sticks and stones may break my bones

But words can never hurt me. Most people reacting so vehemently to Malema's antics don't even understand the language in which he sings that stupid song. It's like going to the opera as an Englishman and fussing about the Italian words the soprano belts out, the Italian words an Englishman doesn't even know.

A double standard?

When some paler member of our society gets caught out saying the word "kaffir", it is an instant political and commercial death penalty. I'm undecided about whether a stupid racist epithet warrants the ending of a career. Refer again to "Sticks and stones may break my bones" above - I believe there is far more harm in a superficially liberal capitalist (wordlessly!) overlooking black employees for promotions, merely for being black, than there is in some unreformed Afrikaner going all kaffir-this-kaffir-that at a braai, yet who never gives practical effect to any of their lingering prejudices. Yes, I believe that such people exist, and even that they are not uncommon. To them (and I encourage fearful white people to apply this qualifier to the meaning of "boer" in that stupid song), the word "kaffir" is merely a colloquialism for "black man", a bad habit they learned in our bad old days. At the braai the word means only the response it elicits from others at the braai - there is no lynch mob or shotgun commando or any other hostility. Most likely there is a mild feeling of superiority of a kind that the men present probably feel towards women too, but mostly the connotation is that of a very-different man, and not much, if any, hostility. And, as surprising as it might seem, I have heard the word "kaffir" being used in an almost reverent fashion, where it's meaning seems closer to the original "unbeliever" - an affirmation of both differentness and respectability. (That's not an argument for using the word. I wish white folk here would just forget that past-expiry-date word.)

Yet when some ANCYL leader (whether as the present incarnation in Julius Malema or as previous ones in Peter Mokaba) sings some "liberation song" whose words literally translate as "kill the farmer" or something to that effect, words which almost all white people recoil at as vehemently as black folk recoil at the word "kaffir", one needs to drag these ANCYL leaders, kicking and screaming, to a less inflammatory stance.

I accept the truth of the saying, "The victor writes the history books". The victors here have decided that the punishment for getting caught saying "kaffir" shall be the political death penalty, while for similarly inflammatory utterances with inverse polarity, there shall be only a delayed (if it comes at all) and grudgingly administered slap on the wrist. This imbalance grates me. In my perfect world, people in positions of influence would receive the political death penalty equally, whether they said "kaffir", "kill the boer", or "wait till Mandela dies".

What to do if you dislike Julius Malema

DON'T PANIC.

Your reaction is his source of power: stop feeding it. The next time he mouths off about something and the media rejoice over the opportunity to hit high circulation numbers, ask yourself whose cause you are helping in gobbling it all up. Can you, personally, make him recant his statements? Didn't think so. Would you, personally and directly, be affected even if he does get his way and has mines nationalized? Not really - unless you own a mine. How likely is it even, really, that he would ever get his way? Do you think Patrice Motsepe will just roll over and let the government take his mine(s)? Or the trade unions, who own large chunks of the mining industry? Apply those critical thinking skills you claim to have as an advantage over him! Remember that whenever Julius is in the news, there is probably something else that got pushed out of the news. Something boring and unimportant like your right to know about the "Zuma tapes", for example.

In short: stop caring so much. That is what I do. There are many ways to push my buttons to get me upset, but Julius Malema ranting about something isn't one of them. I care more about YOUR caring about Juju, than I care about him himself, and my writing this post is more about you and your reaction than it is about Mr Malema.

I realise that in writing this post I am feeding the monster I wish to vanquish. I see this as a tactical retreat - giving up a little territory in the hope of finding reinforcements from the army of the apathetic.

Poverty challenge

My colleagues were lamenting how pitiful the South African state pension is - the figure of R283 per month came up. (Sorry, I have no reference.) I claimed that it is possible to survive on that amount, if one reduces ones living standards sufficiently. So the discussion quickly turned into a challenge - whether I could survive on R283 for one month.

(AFAIK the state pension is almost 4 times this amount. I don't know where the figure of R283 fits in - some arbitrary definition of "below the bread line" perhaps?)

I simply do not believe that it is necessary to starve to death in this country. We have enough fat in our system that just about anybody within a couple of sigmas of the mean should be able to eke out a living, however meager.

Of course R283 doesn't go very far. I've accepted that there is no room for a private medical plan. Then again, if you ignore the quacks that advocate garlic for the treatment of AIDS, our public health system is still ticking over, if strained. As for accommodation - let's just pretend that there are an infinite number of bridges. Our weather is mild enough here in the Cape that one needn't die of exposure. But I'll stick to my own home for the Challenge Lite. And since I'm simulating unemployment, I don't really need daily transport, but if I do it'll have to be (make-believe) third-class train tickets.

I don't know if anybody wants to join me in taking on this challenge. I'm not even sure I want to go through with it myself! But I think it would be interesting to test the limits of financial stress. So I'm looking for tips on how to stretch every penny. So far I'm a little stumped on how to get enough protein; carbohydrates seem affordable enough. And let's not forget vitamins.