A video of white students at South Africa’s University of Free State forcing black employees to eat food that contains urine raises questions about the current state of racial affairs in South Africa.
BBC featured part of the video on its website and had a picture of it with the caption:
The alleged victims vomited after being made to eat fouled food.
What wording, “alleged”! Why not write, “The alleged victims allegedly vomited after allegedly being made to eat allegedly fouled alleged food”?
As South African professor, Sean Jacobs wrote on the Guardian’s blog, the BBC has been mighty gentle on this one:
If the BBC’s tone is anything to go by, get ready for some apologetic reporting.The BBC used scare quotes to describe the incident. As a friend reminded me, why, in reporting an appalling recent incidence of abuse of blacks by whites in South Africa, did the BBC opt to use quotes? The headline reads “Outcry in SA over ‘racist’ video”. So which is it – is it racist? Or is it merely “racist”?
This incident brought about widespread outrage in South Africa. It was widely cast as a racist prank.
Some, especially those unfamiliar with the historical context of systematic racial degradation in South Africa (i.e. BBC?), may not see this as more than a harmless college prank.
I highly doubt it was meant to be harmless (as safiyyah points out in the comments section, the video showed a “prankster” saying “That is what we think of integration”) as the BBC allows.
For the sake of argument, let us assume it was. In such a case, there is a bigger problem with the education system and the entire reconciliation process. No matter their intentions, they should know this act is loaded with meaning, as whites in South Africa interacting with blacks. Historical amnesia when it comes to oppression — as exhibited by too many white South Africans — is a luxury of the privileged.
If they did not understand the weight of their actions, then they are not learning about what is needed for true reconciliation — a remembrance of the past. As Jacobs’ piece explores, the “post” in post-Apartheid South Africa is a weak qualifier. The country still suffers from segregation and a vast income and quality of life disparity.
Does this mean that every time a white person does something wrong to a black person it is racist? No, but that white person carries a historical burden and needs to understand how his or her actions will be seen in light of that rich historical context.
Related posts:
- Israelis Adopt What South Africa Dropped
- Learning From South Africa?
- Apartheid South Africa and Israel Today
- Israel as the New South Africa
- Today In History
Does it bother anyone else that the workers were mostly women, whereas the students appear to be male?
I think it can be said that it was definitely not meant to be harmless, by the way. According to the BBC Video, at the end, the video said, “That is what we think of integration.”
Posted by Safiyyah | February 29, 2008, 7:13 amu forgot to put a question mark at the end of ur sentence: “The alleged victims allegedly vomited after…”
ALLEGEDLY you don’t know grammar very well. Thanks for the first rate post, ass.
Posted by Programmer Buydatti | February 29, 2008, 7:20 amThanks safiyyah, I updated it to include your great point.
Buydatti (“Programmer” shows whose side you are on),
Thanks for the grammatical nitpicking. I fixed it. With these little comments, you are doing for more for KF since we evicted your hopeless good-for-nothing ass.
Will
Posted by Will | February 29, 2008, 9:17 amI same how you pen.Are you unputdownable in a relation quantify author job?
Posted by Home Insurance | July 2, 2011, 2:39 am