Gillian Schutte defends race labeling, toads

In the critically acclaimed film “BlacKkKlansman,” directed by Spike Lee, the term “toad” is ingeniously used to refer to a specific type of ‘white person’. The historical context of this term presents all sorts of problems but has been decoded by critics as a dramatic technique that ‘provides insight into the racial climate of the time and the profound impact of the civil rights movement’.

Traditionally associated with amphibians, toad is used as a code word by Lee’s ‘African American’ detective Ron Stallworth” to ‘identify racist and bigoted individuals’ within the Colorado Springs Police Department.

The tactic, essentially one of reverse psychology, sheds light on the “hateful language used by white supremacists to demean and dehumanize black individuals”

Unfortunately South Africa’s Gillian Schutte is not Hollywood’s Spike Lee — her adoption of counter-factual histories, bold language and narrative that appropriates the rhetoric of the radical black left, (without giving any credit), is merely repackaged by a ‘white person’ given some leeway to comment on the sensitive topic — with the result she is a firm favourite of today’s editors — those who may wish to see their own jaundiced views reflected back in print media.

There is thus a plethora of Schutte’s published writing in my country.

Her opinion pieces circulate online in their dozens in the aftermath of the GNU — all leading one into the arena of ersatz political analysis, of the kind delivered by feminists who may object to transexuality by misunderstanding gender. Sorry Gillian, it’s not all reducible to biology but rather a subject informed by legal definitions open to legislative scrutiny. Allowing a man to transition to a women and vice versa, is neither a denial of the suffragette movement nor would treating all humans as equals — judging a person on the basis of ones character not ones colour — be a negation of civil rights — quite the opposite.

Schutte appears oblivious to the problem presented by ‘race and gender’ from the perspective of the administration of law, and I speak here as a recipient of the idiocy of laws of my own country. Yes, she may object to non-racialism but invariably it is without bothering to examine the provenance of the term, within the Unity Movement and the racialisation of society which this movement opposes. (Read my piece here)

The same may be said of Schutte’s Hogwarts feminism.

Race slurs are the tactic of racists.

Need one remind readers that racial slurs by individuals, like the tactics of racialisation, have long been a tool of those who lack coherent arguments, or who seek to reduce the nuance and complexity of life into convenient soundbytes. Maintaining power by replacing patriarchy with matriarchy, rule by men, with rule by women, ranks as bad an idea as replacing ‘racialisation with more racialisation’, one form of hegemony with another. Hurt cannot be healed by more pain. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.

I thus find myself constantly amazed, gobsmacked that Schutte is allowed inches of column space to spew her drivel, pontificating on a subject for which she provides very little context and history, save an appeal to her own authority.

While those who were on the frontlines of the anti-apartheid movement and its campaign against the racialisation policies of apartheid may be a dying breed, one should never forget the premise of the Unity Movement — there is only one stream of common humanity, not separate streams resulting in different species of human, as the apartheid doctor Piet Koornhof would have it.

Race Theories rejected by science

The assertions made by Unity won out when the multi-regionalist theory of human evolution (the idea that the races spontaneously evolved in different parts of the globe resulting in mutual claims of superiority/inferiority) was finally shot down, alongside apartheid race eugenics, by the paleoscience of the nineties.

Sadly race science has seen an upsurge, there have been many attempts in recent years to resurrect the idea of ‘separateness in lineage’, those who seek to rebrand the theory to explain the presence of ‘Neanderthal alleles‘ and thus links to sub-populations seemingly external to our common human genome. But this tinkering with interpretation of data reminds one of the rephrasing of the specific ambitions of the anti-apartheid movement by millennial radicals into a more generalist claim involving ethnicity and religion, and a tragic process whereby the NGK is allowed to escape its role merely so Christianity may triumph?

The hackneyed arguments brought by Schutte that ‘dropping race labels are somehow akin to dropping gender labels‘, or egad, promoting non-racialism is somehow a ‘ betrayal of the struggle for democracy and human rights’, since it allegedly results in ‘an embrace of colonialism” by our GNU‘, must be rejected given the particular circumstances of our democracy. A state of affairs which is anything but PW Botha’s Tricameral Parliament — a dismal political experiment which comprised separate houses for each designated ‘race group’ alongside a reform of racialisation laws to reflect a new type of racist othering.

Strip away Schutte’s radical invective and all what one gets is a ‘lesson about toads delivered by a toad’, and if that makes one an enemy of amphibians then so be it.

READ: If everyone is a racist, nobody is a racist

READ It’s 2023, enter the ‘woke’ anti-everything brigade

READ: Yoga ‘wokeism’ misses the whole point of post-modernity.

See through the hate politics

THE Anti-Politics of Andile Mngxitama, Zanele Lwana, Dumisani Hlophe, and Gillian Schutte have graced a number of publications over the past weeks. From City Press to Independent Online, this group of self-appointed political pundits, have become a stock source of criticism of any opposition trend which does not have the commandeerist seal of approval.

Whether it be advocacy of Mandela’s non-racial legacy, a march in support of economic development, or a campaign against corruption within the ruling party, such opposition concerns are written off as nothing more than “right-wing conservativism”, “pro-JSE market fascism” and “white privilege”.

In Whites Marched to Uphold their privilege  Schutte expresses her belief that the march “indicated the wish to shift political power back into “competent white hands”.

In see through the white nostalgia for apartheid,  Mngxitama and Lwana, assert that the campaign is “just an excuse to flaunt racism and fascism”.

In Madiba legacy a liberal construct is right when he says “Mandela has gone in our minds from militant to saintly reconciler”. It is not the ANC who have reconstructed Mandela from “a militant liberation hero to a reconciler, nation-builder and saintly Mother Teresa character” but rather “unreformed apartheid benefactors.”

All three pieces demonstrate a class project that is avowedly against the non-racial policies of the ruling African National Congress party and leading opposition party, the Democratic Alliance. In order to gain relevance within the ultra-leftist circle surrounding the South African Communist Party, various trade unions and the EFF, (Malema is by all accounts, a Maoist), these pundits blanket-label opposition (and government) in terms that are extraordinarily broad, and often qualified by hate speech and racial profiling.

A progressive meeting aimed at reclaiming economic policies that will avoid South Africa going bankrupt, is thus something more sinister, a conservative “reactionary movement”. An amalgam of youth, students and ageing lefties is thus either a new threat, or an old foe, the”white right-wing” organising only “under the pretext of fighting corruption”. Mandela’s legacy is therefore, a cynical “liberal construct”, a new target in the battle against neo-liberalism by the ultra-left.

It was not so long ago, when communists were on the receiving end of this kind of McCarthyiest witch-hunt, to expose persons and movements with wrong-views, divergent opinions and unlicensed ideology. What is clear, is that there is growing opposition to untrammelled government largesse, an unequal state where 40% of the budget goes towards public service salaries. A country dangerously teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. An economy being strangled by monopolies and parastatals. Since Mr Zuma came to power in 2009, says the Economist, South Africa’s finances have grown ever more precarious. The budget deficit is 3.8% of GDP. Public debt has ballooned from 26% to almost 50%. (see  Try again, the Beloved Country)

The drift towards fascism in South Africa, is not coming from conservatives within the African National Congress, and the democratic opposition, it is coming from ultra-Marxists on the ground, (and within parliament) who see themselves as a vanguard of a revolution still to come.

Whether it is in terms of the Arab Spring, which failed notably in Syria, where the result is 380 000 dead, or in terms of South and Central American failures such as Chavez, Castro and Kirchner, these pundits, notoriously thin on human rights and individual freedom, believe that ideology alone is sufficient to move the country forward.

<script async src=”https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-1630578712653878″ crossorigin=”anonymous”></script><ins class=”adsbygoogle” style=”display:block” data-ad-format=”fluid” data-ad-layout-key=”-5c+cv+44-et+57″ data-ad-client=”ca-pub-1630578712653878″ data-ad-slot=”9120443942″></ins><script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});</script>