I recently came across a website that expressed views about South Africa and South Africans in general that disturbed me. I am not going to highlight the site by mentioning it here, but I have posted my response below.

You should have a disclaimer on your site indicating that you don't speak for:

1. All, or even most, South Africans, and
2. All, or even most, white South Africans.

Why would you see all blacks, most especially a black child, as being someone worthy of hate? What has she ever done to harm you? And if you hate her because of the potential she has to harm you when she grows up, is she justified in hating you (or your children) for the potential you have to harm her? This philosophy only leads to endless hate and unhappiness.

Can you honestly say that most black South Africans are worthy of your hate and contempt? Have you even spoken to enough black South Africans to have an opinion? I agree that there is a vocal minority who are blatant racists and are deserving of contempt, but they are just that - a minority. And even they deserve contempt and not hatred.

I don't believe that BBBEE, or AA are good tools to solve our problems. I also hate the crime and violence. I am worried about the direction that our country is taking. But I don't have to hate people to express that concern. I don't have to incite or condone violence against children (or adults, for that matter) in order to let people know how I feel. By perpetuating hate you are perpetuating the problems that South Africa is facing. The problem is widespread indifference, and racial intolerance by a vocal minority. You're part of the problem, and your attitude is making it worse.

Your site could document your feelings and concerns, and highlight the crime problem WITHOUT resorting to racial attacks that do nothing more than alienate normal people who are concerned with the problems we face, and give the government and other political figures a target to point to as an example of how the social problems of our past have not gone away, but are "deep rooted in the community".

You are not a part of my community, and I distance myself from you and all like you. People are people, skin colour and tone is incidental. Learn to deal with that and I'm sure you will be a happier person. It must be terribly difficult living with the burden of hate that appears to be the focal point of your life.

There is a Latin proverb that says "History is written by the victor". It is perhaps for this very reason that Thomas Jefferson wrote "A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable".

With that in mind, the irony of this article is rather bitter. This is a brief bit of real history, a history where I was the victor. And yet, not only do Inot get to write the history, history seems to have been re-written to remove all trace of my accomplishment. And when I say I, I refer to many (the vast majority) of white South African's.

But first, a question. Why did Apartheid end?

Well, I can answer that for you. It was not sanctions, and it was not the armed struggle. As strange and controversial as that statement may be, it's the truth.

As a white South African (emphasis needed only for this article), I can ensure you that for most of my apartheid South African life I was completely unaffected by sanctions, and where I was affected by the struggle it only strengthened my resolve to stand against terrorism. As a matter of fact, I kept a journal as a child, so I can say with certainty that I was 15 before I even realised that there was such a thing as apartheid in South Africa, and then all I recognised (and I quote from that journal) was that "black people are treated differently to white people". I didn't know why, or even the extent of how, just that there was a difference.

With that in mind, many other South Africans were in the same situation as I was. While I can't speak for my what my friends said or thought, I know that we weren't really taught to hate black people in school, and I wasn't taught anything of the sort at home (quite the opposite, actually). And while I'm sure that there were people who did try to teach hatred and racial segregation to their children, it would seem that those people were few and far between. And history should bear witness to that.

There are many things that led to the downfall of Apartheid, but most of them were the kinds of things that happen quietly in the mind, and not loudly with guns and angry words. Things that didn't have much of an impact were sanctions, and things which invariably slowed down the process were things that involved violence.

The problem with things like sanctions is that they hurt the people they are trying to help. Sanctions caused price increases in most items - increases that barely affected my family, but hurt the poorer (mostly black) population. My parents, and other adults complained about high prices on all sorts of items, but we had access to them and bought them in any case. I can never recall, even once, walking into a shop and finding the shelves empty. About the only thing that I can remember happening that actually hurt us was the move away from the gold standard. There was a time when the South African Rand was one of the strongest currencies in the world, due of course to the vast number of gold mines in the country.

As for terrorism - the only thing terrorism has ever accomplished is to cause people to "rally round the leader". In times of war and strife, most people are scared to upset the balance for fear that it will bring more hardship and danger.

What would have been a better strategy would be to flood the market with ideas that exposed more people to the fact that there were differences between whites and blacks. More of an effort to help people to realise that there was a problem, and that they COULD do something about it.

A lot of people outside of the country don't realise that for most of their lives during the Apartheid regime, white South Africans could choose to vote either for the Conservative Party (who were for taking away more black rights) or the National Party (the more "liberal" party, and the party that was eventually responsible for the process that ended Apartheid). Through my entire childhood, as far as I can remember, the National Party was in power. The people I spoke to were scared of blacks coming to power (primarily because the ANC was a terrorist organisation that regularly bombed civilian targets*), but felt the existing socio-political environment was wrong. But didn't see how the situation could change.

What ended Apartheid was the then president of the country (FW de Klerk - who won a Nobel Piece Prize together with Nelson Mandela) asked the country to make a choice - vote yes to end Apartheid, vote No to keep Apartheid. It was my first election, and I, with the majority of the country, voted to end apartheid. We did it because the majority of (white) South African's didn't believe it was a good system, and we finally had a choice with a plan that seemed viable. We were still scared, and with good cause, but we did it. The very fact that we were so scared and yet did it in any case should indicate that this was a decision that was motivated by a belief in what was right and not simple economics. People don't trade safety for money. People give up safety for ideals.

Now I realise that this may be an unpopular piece of history, especially with so many of our politicians using their role in the "armed struggle" as political currency. I'd like to remind all reading this that South Africa's metamorphosis into a new democracy happened without guns, and mostly without violence. This was not an armed revolution where the old and evil government was violently ejected. It was a peaceful process that started with a vote, and ended with an election. And the danger with re-writing this history is that many black South Africans will never be taught this one simple fact. White South Africans realised that what was happening was wrong, and chose to fix it. That act of starting the process that would begin to rectify the mistakes of the past is a vital part of our history. White South Africans were not forced into submission through force of arms, which implies that the change was unwilling on our part. We willingly embraced the change, indicating that we wanted the change. We were not compelled to change through fear, we changed in spite of our fear. And that message is vital for South Africa's future.

---

(* Yes, they did. I was there. In fact, many of the dustbins and other container type items found in the streets in major cities were specially designed to turn to powder instead of shrapnel when they exploded - necessary because bombs were regularly placed inside container type items around popular civilian attractions - shopping centers, movie theaters, etc... I was also a national serviceman. I was shot at for no reason more sinister than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.)

I think that we as a society are failing our children. I believe that as parents many of us are doing a great job, but that as a society we are failing miserably.

Just about every day we hear stories about children who have been killed, raped, stolen, lost, abused, neglected, abandoned and otherwise mistreated. If you're like me, you hear these things and feel the emotions well up inside you. You feel a desire to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to resolve the situation. Then carry on with your day.

I think that needs to change, and I'm going to list a few things I believe each of us can do to remedy the situation:

1. Get sex off the TV - It doesn't matter what your personal religious, moral or ethical beliefs are. Children who are exposed to sex too early build a skewed vision of the world. If a child watches 4 soapies, a drama and an action programme in a day, and sees 11 types of openly sexual expression, they will build an image of a world where people use sex to express emotions. These days on TV, the natural thing for two people to do when they realise they love each other (or maybe just "like" each other) is to have sex. Even if they are married to someone else. Think of what this is teaching young children about expression of love, honesty and integrity. Many people aren't aware of this, but you can make a TV program, or even a full length movie, without having a sex scene, and have the film still be successful and enjoyable.
   
2. Get sexual innuendo out of our adverts - The reasons for this are the same as the reasons given above. Only worse, because it's often not as obvious.
   
3. Stop advertising junk to children - This may seem like a strange one, but if you think about it, what's the point of advertising to a 5 year old? Young children are incredibly impressionable and tend to believe pretty much anything you tell them. Advertising to children leads them to believe that they need items like toys, sweets, special shoes, etc... This can actually hurt a child's self esteem when they cannot get the toy, sweet, etc. for whatever reason. If you want to advertise children's product, advertise them to the parents.
4. Make companies responsible for the effects of their products - This kind of goes along with the point above, but force companies to take responsibility for what they are selling. If you are pushing a product to kids, be prepared to be held responsible if it causes health problems. I once went to a Kellogg's "breakfast" where the nutritionist was recommending a sugar laden breakfast cereal. I asked why she didn't recommend something healthier (like muesli, all bran flakes, etc...). She responded "Because children wont eat that stuff". Sure. My daughter had been brought up eating all bran flakes, muesli, yoghurt and wheat bix- the healthiest foods we could find. And she likes them. Asks for them by name. Similarly, because she has been taught from birth that she WILL eat her veggies, and because she gets veggies, she eats them without a problem. Why aren't companies advertising healthy foods (and other products) to kids?
5. Stop propagating ridiculous stereotypes - Usually the only women who look like Barbie are sick. It's really OK for guys to cry when they get sad. Poor people aren't all lazy, rich people aren't all happy. Et cetera. Lets make sure that our media stops portraying these falsehoods once and for all.
6. Brainwash your child - This is a fun one, and can be seriously controversial. Children are so impressionable that simple exposure to an idea can imprint that idea on their minds forever. Too often people feel they can leave their children to learn about life, love and religion for themselves. This is a cop out. If you are not ACTIVELY teaching your child what you believe to be true, then whoever else IS teaching your child (TV, school teachers, your friends, their friends, friends parents, ...) will have their version of reality imprinted on your child's brain. However you look at it, someone is teaching (brainwashing) your child. If you don't want to be the one to do it, don't be surprised when you don't like the result.
7. Children need discipline - Discipline doesn't necessarily mean punishment, but sometimes it does. People need rules in their lives in order to function properly in society. When they are young they need us to provide not only the rules, but also the guidance and training to adhere to those rules. As they get older they will slowly start setting their own rules. If we don't teach them the discipline necessary to observe rules, they will never be truly happy or safe.
8. Children need to communicate - Children need protection from all sorts of things they don't see as dangerous (and these things change as they get older), but when they are young they need special protection from other people, and the only real way we can provide this protection is for us to create secure, trusting environments for them to live in, an environment where they feel they can discuss things that are important to them without fear of ridicule or worse, being ignored.
   
9. Sexy is NOT good for children - Often parents feel the need to dress their children up look "sexy". Princeton's wordnet describes sexy as "marked by or tending to arouse sexual desire or interest". Why on earth would any sane parent want anyone looking at their child to become sexually aroused? Rather let children dress like, and look like, children. This is especially important for child models, who are not only at higher risk, but also tend to set expectations for other children.
   
10. And finally, Be your child's parent, not their friend - Children need friends, and part of the roll of parent is definitely to be a friend to your child. But your child will have many friends over the course of his or her life. Normally, the only parents they will have is you. Be a parent. Chastise when necessary, praise when possible. Lead by example, set and enforce boundaries. Love unconditionally, and don't be afraid to make mistakes.

These are Jason's 10 quick fixes to getting society back on track. We always need to remember that the children growing up today are going to be the accountants, lawyers, engineers, policemen, judges, soldiers and other members of society when they grow up. Putting a little work into bringing them up properly will pay off in the short term, and will pay massive dividends in the long term.

One final thing to keep in mind is that we must not be afraid to let our children know when we have made mistakes. Our children will learn we are not infallible soon enough, teaching them that we recognise when we have messed up, and then showing them that we take responsibility for the problem, and work to fix it, will teach them a valuable lesson about dealing with their own mistakes.

Some taxi drivers recently assaulted a young women who was dressed in a mini skirt. Apparently they tore her clothes off and touched her private parts while pouring alcohol over her.

Now, I want to go on record as saying that I condemn this in the strongest possible way. I feel that the people who did this should be identified and prosecuted. In addition, I think it's important that society makes it clear that this kind of behaviour is really not acceptable.

But at the same time I wonder how wise it was to wear the mini skirt there in the first place.

If I draw a wad of money from an ATM, and then walk around with the money hanging out of my pockets, I'm probably going to get robbed. It might happen in a nice neighbourhood, but it's more likely to happen in a not-s0-nice neighbourhood. And I can almost guarantee that if I walk around with the money bulging out of my pockets for long enough I WILL get mugged. It won't be nice, kind, law abiding citizens who do it, it will be the kind of pond scum who really have no respect for me, the law, or my rights.

What would you think if you read my story in a newspaper? Would you pity me, or would you think I'm an idiot for walking around with money clearly visible.

These days, more and more women are walking around scantily dressed, and some of the outfits I've seen I've wondered why they even made the effort to put clothes on. Women seem to think that it's a sign of emancipation - a badge of freedom perhaps.

The thing is, just as the law gives me the right to walk around dripping money, the law gives women (and men, for that matter) the right to wear whatever clothes they like when they go out. And we can both exercise our rights without fearing the other honest, law abiding citizens out there. But when we are assaulted (by people who could care less about our rights)), we both need to recognise that just because we have a right doesn't mean we can exercise it without consideration of the danger we place ourselves in.

Now I happen to feel that sexual assault is orders of magnitude more serious than simple robbery. Sexual assault has effects and consequences that are far more serious that me losing some money, and the people who commit any kind of sexual assault should face the wrath of the legal system.

And perhaps because I see sexual assault as being so much more serious, I feel that women should take more responsibility for what they wear. Wearing a mini skirt does not give anyone the right to strip your clothes off and touch your private parts. But if not wearing a mini skirt would have been safer, I feel that a different skirt should have been worn.

One day, when all the criminals have been routed from society, it will be safe for me to walk around baring my money to the world at large. But until then I'm going to play it safe. I'd rather hang on to my money, and doing it as a matter of principle will lose me a lot of money without having any noticeable effect on the cretins of the underworld.

I'm a South African, and proud of it. I have always loved my country and it's people. And yet I'm considering emigrating. Because of racism.

Ii is unfortunate that I was born during the Apartheid years, and grew up in a society that discriminated against people because of the colour of their skin. And yet even then (thanks mostly to my parents and friends, I'm sure) I didn't have any racist feelings or desires. I was lucky enough to keep a journal when I was growing up, and a few years back I was busy going through it when I noticed an entry I made when I was 15 years old. The entry reads simply:

"I just realised today that black people are treated differently to white people. I don't understand why."

My feelings from then just got stronger. The first election I can remember voting in was when South Africa was asked to vote on whether to end apartheid. I voted yes. I was excited when Nelson Mandela was release from prison, and (although I didn't vote for the ANC in the first truly democratic elections) was glad when discriminatory laws started being repealed.

I eventually married, and when we found out that it would be really difficult for us to have children of our own, we adopted a little girl (who happened to be black).

I will admit that we had concerns about adopting a non-white child. There were all sorts of things to consider:

• How would our family feel about this?
• How would our friends feel?
• Were we equipped to deal with the racism that would invariably follow?

All of our concerns were about our potential weaknesses as parents. And I think that we did pretty well. We decided that we were going to adopt this little girl, and if family, friends, in fact anybody didn't like it, we would cut them out of our lives. This may seem harsh, but we didn't want our daughter to associate us with any negative feelings that others might have. I'm glad to report, though, that we haven't lost a single friend or family member.

After the adoption, we realised that we'd made a really big mistake when considering potential problems. There was one problem that we didn't expect at all - that many (and by far NOT the majority, but still many) black people were very unhappy that we had adopted a black child.

It was clear that many people across the colour spectrum didn't (and still don't) understand what we had done. We hear things like "You'll be blessed for what you've done" and "Thank you for doing this", statements that show people who see a white couple that adopted a black baby out of sympathy, and this is not the case. We adopted a baby. Her race was irrelevant. She IS the blessing, and we're thankful for her. And our experiences have been mostly, sometimes overwhelmingly, positive.

But then there is the negative. It's interesting to note that there has been one negative reaction from a white person (Some guy walked past my wife and said "Somebody slept with a kaffir"), and many many negative reactions from black people. Anger because we don't deserve a black baby, anger that we're not teaching her a black culture, anger that she gets a timeout when she's throwing a temper tantrum, anger that she doesn't speak a black language. Sometimes a form of righteous indignation, sometimes just plain anger. And from many different black people, across many walks of life. Many, but not the majority.

My wife and I have been following Jacob Zuma's rise very carefully. What we think of him personally is irrelevant (primarily because we will most likely never have to deal with him personally). What is important is what we think he will do for the country, and we are worried. What concerns us is the type of people who are most vocal in their support of Zuma. These people seem to be extremists who care more about their own agenda than the rule of law. And judging by their language, they are a bunch of racists.

I'm quoting from the Friends of Jacob Zuma website here:

• "... if it is war that you are looking for, you are welcomed for we will defend JZ with our lives and we can play dirtier than you and your lot."
• "I will not accept a guilty verdict" (referring to JZ corruption trial)
  
• "... I would think that the ones that are disillusioned are the ones that are still opposed to democracy, in favour of racial discrimination, contemplating of leaving this country for their hatred of a black rule and who believe in non-action for redressing the imbalances of the past as a matter of urgency." (sic)
• "This forum, as its name suggest, is laden with people who will support Zuma regardless of his fitness or non-fitness for office"
• "For this reason I feel the need to state categorically that not all whites nor journalists nor editors are like that [racists] but those who are an exception are grossly outnumbered and are few and far between (i.e. negligible)"
• "No need for Zuma to go court, all these fake cases were manufactured by forces of darkness."
• "About Zuma going to Mauritius, it was to clean the mess caused by these so called apartheid vultures and coconuts."
• "White people must learn that life in South Africa doesn't revolve around them and that if they are not invited they must not pitch up unannounced"

Given the sentiments expressed above, and taking into consideration our experiences with racism, should we be considering leaving the country in order to protect ourselves and our family? Do we face any real danger if Zuma becomes president? Perhaps a better question would be will Zuma listen to his more radical supporters after he's in office?

It's a tough call. I love my country, and I love the people in my country. But not at the expense of my family.

I was talking to Udo Carelse from Talk Radio 702 a few days back, and I made a comment that we as a country don't really need to be too worried about racist or discriminatory acts comitted by individuals, but that when these acts are comitted or condoned by the state, that we need to start worrying that our rights are under attack.

After I went off air, Udo commented that we need to be careful not to see transformation as discrimination. This struck me as rather interesting. In order to confuse transformation with discrimination would imply that that transformation IS discrimination in some form. The difference is whether that discrimination is acceptable to us or not.

I'd like to suggest an ammendment that statement: we need to be careful not to see discrimination as transformation. In order to right the wrongs of the past we don't need to punish those who benefitted from it. We need to rectify the problems and ensure they never come back.

What South Africa needs right now more than anything is for the public to be against racism in any form or guise. Racism against all parties should be equally strongly condemned by all parties. If we do this, I believe we will stamp out all traces of racism fairly quickly.

Much has been said about Apartheid in South Africa. It's a word that invokes strong reactions in most who hear it, and it has a legacy that seems unwilling to leave South Africa alone. But what was apartheid? If you take a look at the simple meaning of the word, apartheid means separateness. In 1948 NP terms it meant separate development and racial segregation. It was racial discrimination.

Racial discrimination is a thorn that has plagued the world for many years. In 1966 the United Nations issued the "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" (ICERD). In this document, racial discrimination is defined as:

"... any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

The Forum for Black Journalists (FBJ) recently organised a briefing with the president of the ANC Jacob Zuma. This was an off-the-record briefing, and it was organised to be blacks-only. This move to exclude white journalists from a briefing by the leader of the largest political party in South Africa, and the man likely to be the next president of the country has sparked debates and arguments across the country. And through this, FBJ have defended their decision to exclude white journalists by claiming that they have the right to organise themselves however they wish, and have also claimed that this action was not racial discrimination.

Racial discrimination has a sordid history in South Africa, and has cost the lives of many thousands of men, women and children. Many of South Africa's current leaders were involved in "The Struggle". These people are seen as heroes who fought the forces of oppression and racial discrimination to ring in a new age of freedom for all. There are many names in this list of heroes, and one of them is Jacob Zuma. Mr Zuma, hero of the struggle, hero of the people, president of the ANC. And speaking of the ANC, it's interesting to note that in it's constitution it states that it's aims are (among others) to

"Unite all the people of South Africa, Africans in particular, for the complete liberation of the country from all forms of discrimination and national oppression".

Back to the FBJ briefing and racial discrimination. I'd like to paraphrase from the ICERD :

"Racial discrimination is any exclusion based on race which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political field of public life."

Based on the Human Rights definition, it certainly appears that this briefing was racial discrimination. This should be raising red flags everywhere, but especially, I think, in the ANC (and with Jacob Zuma, president of the ANC), the organisation who states that one of their primary aims is to "Unite all the people of South Africa ... for the complete liberation of the country from all forms of discrimination".

I think it's important to point out that apartheid hurt everyone, whites included. The "white minority" that held power and oppressed the blacks, coloureds, Indians and other non-white groups was not the whites of South Africa collectively - it was a small group of people in power who created and enforced the apartheid system to the detriment of anyone (white or black) who disagreed with or opposed them. Most whites were guilty of nothing more than apathy (still a very serious sin, given the lives that were ruined), and people who did not follow the party line were labelled and shunned. When blacks call other blacks "coconuts" (a racially discriminatory term by definition) when they disagree, and other blacks sit back in apathy and say nothing (or worse yet, defend an action that is in direct opposition to their stated aims) , I see a parallel between society then, and where we're going now. In 40 years, will a black man, looking back on these days and reminiscing about what has happened, write that most blacks were guilty of nothing more than apathy?

We are living in great times. Each of us has the potential to influence others around us to do great good, or great evil. We have a constitution that boldly declares that all people are equal. It is up to each of us to ensure that we do not wake up one morning to find that someone has scribbled "some are just more equal than others" underneath it.

It's sad, but when thinking about what has happened, and contemplating the FBJ's official responses, I'm reminded of a quote:

"... the ruling group could not help but show itself for what it is - a clique of diehard racists, hidebound reactionaries and bloodthirsty fascist braggarts who will heed nobody except themselves."

Oliver Tambo, Lusaka, August 16, 1985