Litnet

Hello Cornelius, 

Baie dankie vir jou brief. 

Om te begin eers die persoonlike kwessies wat jy na vore bring, 'naamlik dat jou persoonlike ervaring geminag word deur my' en 'my drang om mense se ervaring en belewenis intellektualisties te probeer onderdruk' - en andersyds, 'my geneigdheid om die punt (moedswillig?) te mis en dan die gesprek in ’n doodloopstraat te moor'.

'n Paar korreksies word verlang deur my op jou inleidende stellings. 

Persoonlike ervaring word nie deur my geminag nie, want hoe sal die waarheid of onwaarheid daarvan kan bevestig word deur my as 'n buitestaander, jou stellings gemaak in daardie hoedanigheid moet aanvaar word in goeie trou. 

Wat wel bevraagteken word om persoonlike ervaring dan te projekteer as verteenwoordigend van 'n groep se waarheid, en dat die groep se waarheid is, wat jy beweer in jou hart is.

Dit kan die enkeling nie doen nie, die gevoel van die groep moet getoets word. 

Die mees doeltreffende manier om so te doen is om 'n verteenwoordigende meningsopname gebaseer op vrae wat die stelling soos gemaak deur werklik sou toets en bevestig of daar aanvaarding daarvoor is in die algemene samelewing. 

Dit is nie onredelik om daarop aan te dring nie en is algemeen in die bevestiging van die tydsgees. 

Dan is daar weer die kwessie van my 'intellektualistiese instelling'. 

Die intellektualisme waarvan jy my beskuldig is doodgewoon dat inligting moet getoets word om te bepaal of dit betroubaar is. 

Indien jy alles ter harte wil neem sonder enige bevraagtekening dan kan jy nie deur my verhoed word en sal jy jou gang gaan, maar vir my moet 'n stelling getoets word, indien dit jou dan laat voel ek smoor gesprek, dan moet jy iemand kies wat onmiddelik gaan saam stem met jou en jou stellings beaam, ek is nie daardie persoon nie. 

Ek hoop dat ek die insig het om oortuig te kan word, sonder enige twyfel, maar aanvaar nie, 'n stelling sommer voetstoots nie. 

Daarom dan die versoek vir die meningsopname, onlangse briewe en artikels in die swart media nou, wat 'n terugkeer na apartheid agiteer, aangesien ek dit nie ervaar het in die 'Mail and Guardian', 'Business Day', 'Independent Online', wat ek gereeld volg beteken dit die verantwoordelikheid rus op jou om die gevoel wat jy het te bewys, met publikasies wat ek dalk misgekyk het. 

Die doen jy, met 'n verwysing na Jacob Dlamini se boek Native Nostalgia soos bespreek deur Eusebius McKaiser op Politicsweb. 

Eusebius McKaiser is skrywer van wie ek hou en lees gereeld sy kommentaar op die International Herald Tribune en is daarom bekend met sy werk en staan veral uit die kritiek wat hy teen FW De Klerk uitgespreek het toe De Klerk apartheid verdedig het as onskadelik. Soos jy nou poog om te doen. 

Die vertrekpunt is dus die boek wat jy uitgewys het as ondersteunend vir jou argument en spog jy dat dit met min moeite gekry het. 

Dit dateer nou wel van 2009, maar ek is die laaste persoon wat daarmee ongelukkig sal wees. 

Die inleiding van die artikel is soos volg: 

What does it mean for black South Africans to remember life under apartheid with fondness? 

Dit is 'n baie goeie vraag en een waarop 'n antwoord moet gevind word. 

Carte Blanche het ook 'n onderhoud met Dlamini gevoer en begin soos volg: 

Jenny Crwys-Williams (Carte Blanche guest presenter): 'What does it mean that black life under apartheid was not all doom and gloom and that there was a lot of which black South Africans could be and indeed were proud?'

And it was here that he interviewed a 74-year-old resident of the township.

Jacob: 'As we were talking and she started saying all these things about her nostalgia for a Piet Retief that she couldn't recognise anymore, that she didn't know anymore. And that for me was the spark.'

Jenny: 'One of things this 74-year-old women said, 'That I don't know anyone any more' and you point out that in fact the pass laws - although they were loathed and hated and fought against - the pass laws actually kept communities, communities because she was talking about thousands of people just suddenly arriving on her doorstep and changing their way of life altogether.'

Jacob: 'That is one of the contradictions that I had to deal with. That here is a symbol, here is the ultimate symbol of apartheid, the pass book. And yet here is black South Africans celebrating the document for making her live in a world that made sense, for helping her know who her neighbours were. We've come to know the dompaas, as it was called for a long time, as this hated symbol of apartheid, and yet there are people out there who looked to it for order, who looked to it for certainty in their lives.'

Its memories, Jacob hopes, which will give townships and the people who live and have lived in them their rightful place in the history of South Africa. There is no other way, he says.

Jacob: 'The book will have succeeded if it leaves you thinking, 'Well, I don't know townships as well as I thought I did'. Because townships are, I guess like race in this country, we assume we all know what it is. There's this body of knowledge about townships that is based on nothing but prejudice and fiction and stereotype. This new understanding or this common sense of townships that I hope this book inspires is one that says, 'No two townships are the same, townships are different, they have different histories, they have different people live in them.''

Jenny: 'I think that you are absolutely passionate that people should look at not only townships, but black South Africans as not being a mass.'

Jacob: 'I take offence of that kind of depiction of black life that just simplifies it and treats black South Africans as if they are just one lump. There is a lot at stake for people who've invested all their lives to try and create this fiction of mass black suffering without any complexity. This is a challenge that can't be born. But for those of us who thrive on complexity, for those of us who think that complexity should be confronted, this book is just one small intervention.'

Let op na daardie, 'treats black South Africans as if they are just one lump'. Maar tog voel jy, jy kan namens die groep praat, die tydsgees so bepaal. (Ongelukkig is die idee van die 'lump, 'n algemene verskynsel)

Dan terug na die artikel wat jy geplaas het:

Eusebius McKaiser indicates that the key premise is that life within South African townships during apartheid was rich and complex, contrary to widespread descriptions of them as mere sites of socioeconomic depravity. Life happened in the township both despite apartheid and in complex relation to apartheid. 

Let op na daardie sin, ten spyte van apartheid het die mense oorleef ...

Fond recollections by blacks are not an inadvertent legitimation of an immoral political system. Of course, fear of being seen to retrospectively endorse apartheid explains why a book like Dlamini's might not have been written before - it invites a lazy accusation that the writer wishes apartheid had never ended.

Let weereens op na die voorafgaande sin en word dit herhaal sodat dit nie gemis kan word nie: 

Fond recollections by blacks are not an inadvertent legitimation of an immoral political system.

By arguing that not all aspects of life in townships were hell, Native Nostalgia humanises township residents. 

It recognises that township residents have always exhibited complex agencies with which they built and negotiated daily life during apartheid. These lived realities - lying at the heart of nostalgic recollections by blacks -  include music, art, games, partying and other markers of normalcy that showcase the human spirit's defiance of the psychological insult that was apartheid. Dlamini adds to this rich characterisation with a number of thought provoking related claims.

Aan die einde word die foute uiteglig in Dlamini se boek: 

The overall analysis suffers two shortcomings. 

First, Dlamini promised too much. The book initially gives the impression that hard answers will be provided to the question of why many black South Africans remember life under apartheid with fondness. We never quite arrive at an actual answer. The book is better described as a bouquet of insightful anecdotes that render township lives more complex and more human than countless outsiders assume.

Maar kom met hierdie hammerhou: 

Instead, these uncomfortable truths disturb the racist spirit of Verwoerd by adding to his defeat with memories that scream, "Despite your violent apartheid evil, we've got news for you! Our humanity and agencies were never entirely within your racist control!" We have no reason to fear native nostalgia.

Daarop van my net 'n amen. 

Dit beteken jy het nie hierdie artikel met aandag gelees en die kruks daarvan verstaan nie, want dit is duidelik dat dit 'n brief aan oorlewing was, 'ons gees' kon nie gedemp word nie.  

Oor die kwessie van geweld het ek al geskryf en het die verskillende maniere hoe dit uitgespeel het probeer verwoord. 

Om te herhaal geweld deur die staat teenoor sy burgers is onaanvaarbaar, geweld teen onderdrukking, wat die norm was, het 'n bestaansreg, 'n moeilike bestaansreg maar dit is daar, mededinging tussen magsgroepe in die aanloop na die verkiesing was onvermydelik en moet verkieslik vermy word. 

Indien jy aanvoer dat die vorige stelsel moes behoue bly om die geweld te voorkom, dan sal ek graag wil lees hoe jy die teenstand sou onderdruk en hoeveel geweld deur die staat teenoor sy burgers vir jou aanvaarbaar sou wees.

Die twee tipes geweld wat staande gebly het is die van misdaadgeweld en opstande teen swak dienslewering. 

Nie een daarvan word deur my goedgekeur nie, maar wat sou die oplossing wees? 

Dienslewering om te begin, en misdaad, daar is seker metodes waar die polisie verbeter kan word en dit moet gedoen word, maar niks van hierdie is 'n aanklag teen demokrasie nie soos jy dit graag wil uitbeeld nie, of is onderdrukking vir jou verkieslik? 

Baie dankie

Wouter 

Tot later dan....