Publications
Partners
For some years now it has been fashionable to denigrate South African farmers.
· On a daily basis contractors transport their workers on open bakkies or trucks. Sometimes accidents happens, and people pretty much accept it as a tragic fact. Except if it was a farmer who transported farm workers. Then the who’s who of the political establishment as a matter of course would jump on the bandwagon and berate farmers in general for not making proper transport arrangements for their workers.
· Farmers are expected to provide housing and amenities to workers which no factory owner is expected to do. Not only that, the quality thereof should exceed that of RDP houses provided by government.
· The De Doorns riots was purportedly against low wages. The government stepped in support of the farm workers in spite of the fact that the actions were illegal, and the minimum wage protested against was accepted by unions and laid down by government. In the Western Cape Parliament the DA was accused of siding with the farmers. Incidentally, the farmers had been on the right side of the law, and one would hence expect the DA to be commended. To the contrary, the then minister of agriculture praised the farm workers for their brave victory.
· Allegations are often made about horrendous conditions on farms, and illegal evictions of farm labourers. But never are the specifics provided so that it can be investigated.
· When unions and politicians refer to “illegal evictions” to generate political points, they actually refer to evictions done in accordance with the various pieces of legislation. Yet, at all times they will still refer to it as “illegal”. A few years ago a state department placed a newspaper ad before a December holiday calling upon farmers to desist from illegal evictions over the holiday season. Even if there had been merits in the allusion contained in the ad, it is pretty much as useful as placing a newspaper ad calling on government officials to refrain from corruption. It is guaranteed to make absolutely no difference to the purported target market. Its only purpose is to generate emotions against the perpetrators.
This is but a few examples of persistent and deliberate ways in which politicians and people with agendas causes negative perceptions about farmers.
Farm attacks are said to be just ordinary crime. The gratuitous violence that goes along with some incidents where nothing or few things are stolen seems to indicate the contrary. But you will only know this if you read the Afrikaans papers.
I daresay the consistent denigration of farmers as an easily identifiable grouping in our country contributes to this violence.
Many would disagree. So let me try another example.
Foreigners
Xenophobia boils over from time to time.
Recently very prominent figures, in the form of the Zulu king and a gentleman with the surname Zuma, publicly voiced their view that foreigners are not welcome. They did not call for any killings. Yet, from Johannesburg it is reported how some of the perpetrators of the violence against foreigners claim to be doing so because “the king has spoken, and his words should not return to him empty”. [http://www.netwerk24.com/nuus/2015-04-19-as-die-koning-di-dinge-s]
Recently a minister claimed that most crimes in the country are perpetrated by foreigners. If true, it would be purely incidental, as there are no statistics to back this up.
I’m trying to make the same point as above: people are influenced by what influential people say. Note that nobody called for the killing of foreigners. But in a society such as ours, even a subtle negative reference is enough to spark this kind of violence.
Whites
Recently president Zuma in a speech blamed Apartheid (code speak for white people) for the problems that Eskom are facing. He lamented the dominance of white shareholding on the JSE. There are too little black manufacturers. The message was clear. There is a white problem that needs to be fixed.
Influencing the masses
Vilifying a segment of society consistently, will in the long run result in some form of retaliation against that group. And if you have a large segment of illiterati in the country, the chances appear to be exponentially bigger.
Conclusion
Reading through my piece I realise it is not as clear as I intend it to be. The English language can really be a bit of a bitch to master. So let me try to summarise my points:
Taking a swipe at minority groups for the sake of political point scoring may serve you well. However, it contributes to hostility that eventually permeates the psyche of a nation.
Recent history made it clear that our nation is easily prone to violence towards a targeted group, and even to violence in general. And although negativity towards some groupings in South Africa may suit the agenda of the ruling party, it has the potential to ignite the barrel.
I would hope that those in power may develop the maturity to realise this. Not only should they consider the potential effect that their own rhetoric could have, but they also need to act decisively against other opinion makers to stem the tide.
For the sake not only of the targeted minorities, but for the well being of the country as a whole.
