The list of black people being murdered and brutalised grows by the minute. It’s not just by police officers and military but people behind the uniform they are wearing and the system, aka systemic racism, that backs up police and military action. Basically, systemic racism is anti-black practices, the unjustly gained political and economic power of white people, the continuing economic and other resource inequalities along racial lines, and the white racist ideologies and attitudes created to maintain and rationalize white privilege and power.
Placing a black President in a country such as South Africa means very little when the economy is not in black hands. We need only look at those that have the wealth to understand that the power is in control of the people who have wealth and not those living in townships.
Because when you have wealth, you have control and those who do not fall into that bracket, are used to create more wealth and increase poverty.In living colour, black and brown people globally have very little power based on the colour of their skins, and it is this that allows for the murder and brutality to continue. There has not been an overhaul of the police system since 1994, in their training. Regardless of the colour of the police or military, the “system” teaches them that it is acceptable to gun down black and brown people. In their training to learn shooting, it does not involve a white man, looking as innocent as the next-door neighbour’s son, armed with a firearm shooting black people.
The images in living colour are black and send clear messages that black and brown people are the problem. They fire at “targets” coming for them, and those targets are often not blonde and blue-eyed. Instead, by the time the police and army personnel have completed their training, all they know is that criminals and gangsters are black and brown people, primarily men, and terrorists are Muslim; so definitely not white.
Trying to live in the colour of skins in a society that’s brainwashed to view black and brown people with suspicion is attempting to dodge proverbial bullets. Because if they lived today, they’re lucky because maybe tomorrow they may not be.
The black people that have been murdered and brutalized at the hands of police officers and military personnel in South Africa and the States are defeating the ends of justice; because justice has not been served, and due process has not happened.Instead, they are gunned down like wild animals while holding a packet of skittles, drinking a beer, using a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill, and or fast asleep in their beds like Breonna Taylor.
What will it take for black and brown people to live in peace in a society that does not allow them to live in the colour of the skins they were born into?
Or perhaps that is the point of it all; maybe black and brown people aren’t meant to live period! How else does one explain what is happening right now or the fact that white people can go about their business never once thinking that they may not make it home alive because they could be gunned down by people in uniform tasked with protecting and serving them?
Social commentator, Nigel Branken, compiles real data that disproves the mythology around white genocide and farm attacks in South Africa
1. Farm murders are extremely rare in South Africa. In 2019 there were 21,022 murders in South Africa… of these only 57 were farm murders (less than 0.3% of murders in SA are farm murders). Farm murders’ rate-calculations, which show farm murders to be more common per population group, are flawed – they do not use the same data set for the denominator and the numerator in the calculation.
For example, they assume that farm murder numbers are only of farmers on commercial farms – but the 57 farm murders are in fact of those living, working and visiting farms and small holdings, therefore in order to calculate a rate you have to calculate how many people live, work and visit farms and small holdings every year. When you do this correctly, the rate is exponentially lower than the 34 per 100,000 murders in all of South Africa per year.
2. Every farm murder receives coverage in multiple media sources (there is no cover up).If you Google “murder in South Africa”, you will see that farm murders receive way more than 0.3% of news coverage with regard to all murder coverage. This means that farm murder receives disproportionately higher coverage than all other murder. The coverage is so disproportionate in fact that it would be fair to say that farm murders get exponentially more coverage than any other type of murder in South Africa.
3. The government does not deny that farm murders exist. Yes, the president once said, “Whoever gave him [Trump] that information was wrong, on the tweet itself he was completely misinformed. There are no killings of farmers or white farmers in South Africa,”. When taken in context, you can see he is referring to Trump’s tweet which refers to “large scale killings of farmers” and the accompanying narrative that white farmers, in particular, are targeted. There is no evidence to suggest this (as indicated above). His spokesperson clarified the context of the statement immediately. He has repeatedly talked about farm murders and addressing them, and as recently as the 15 July 2020, President Ramaphosa said “The issue of farm murders is an issue that is of great concern to us, as of course the killing of many other people including women in our country. Anyone who is killed or is murdered, is of great concern to all of us and the attacks that are taking place on farms are issues that we are concerned about.”
He went on to say, “I was talking to officials in the police today and I was saying we need to focus also on what is happening in a number of places including our farms, including the various places where our people live.” Government also uniquely reports farm murder statistics separately – so that it can be tracked and monitored.
4. Government (SAPS) farm murder statistics are accurate and consistent with farm murder statistics provided by other sources including Afriforum, the Transvaal Agricultural union, and the Freedom Front Plus. There are no other databases which show higher numbers of farm murders indicating any kind of cover up.
5. Government is working with local farming communities to keep them safe through the National Rural Safety Strategy which was developed in 2011 and is regularly reviewed and updated. This strategy was developed with organised agriculture organisations, farmers’ associations and farmer unions, all registered labour unions and civil rights organisations and Community Policing Forums (CPFs).
6. Farm murder numbers have been steadily decreasing and are at a 20 year low
2001/2 – 140
2002/3 – 103
2003/4 – 88
2004/5 – 82
2005/6 – 88
2006/7 – 86
2007/8 – not available
2008/9 – not available
2009/10 – not available
2010/11 – 80
2011/12 – 59
2012/13 – 59
2013/14 – 57
2014/15 – 60
2015/16 – 49
2016/17 – 66
2017/18 – 62
2018/19 – 57 (Source: SAPS)7.
7. Farm murders do not “all involve torture”… torture in farm murders is extremely rare. Afriforum’s analysis of torture in their annual farm attacks and murder reports show no torture in more than 95% of cases. This is consistent with rates of torture in urban housebreaking cases. The Institute for Security Studies Report: “Violent crime on farms and smallholdings in South Africa.
– Policy Brief 2018″ found that farm attacks are relatively similar to attacks in urban areas, such as house or business robberies (both of which are sub-categories of ‘robbery with aggravated circumstances’). In fact, University of South Africa crime researcher, Dr Rudolph Zinn, interviewed house robbers and created a report profiling them. The study, which is backed up by the police who have conducted similar research, revealed that as much as 13% of house robbers would torture their victims using anything from molten plastic to boiling water and hot irons to ensure that the homeowner hands over all of his valuables such as cash and jewellery. In other words, there are higher rates of torture in urban areas than in rural areas according to this study.
8. Farm murders are not only of white people – there is no white genocide. In fact the statistics and studies consistently show that whites are far less likely to be murdered than their black counterparts in South Africa.
9. There is no political motive for the overwhelming majority of farm murders… they are normally criminally motivated.Dr. Johan Burger, of South Africa’s Institute For Security Studies said: “Look, I was in the South African police for 30 years,”… “And I was in charge of investigating a number of individual farm murders. I was also tasked with looking into the subject overall. I have actively tried to find instances of political murders. But I never found even one.” He added that farm attacks may be partially motivated by the isolation of farmers; because their land is further away from neighbors and police stations, they may be easier to rob. There is, however, a political motive for exaggerating farm murders – tied to resisting land reform.
10. Every single farm murder is a tragedy and the life of every person murdered matters.We need to acknowledge that while the farm murder narrative has been hijacked by white supremacists, and they have exaggerated them and often used them to advance an anti-transformation agenda, every murder that happens in our country is one too many.
As an indigenous Black South African I write to express my dismay and disgust at the recent appointment of outgoing WITS Vice Chancellor, Adam Habib, as Director of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) by the University of London. Board Member Marie Staunton, the Chair of the SOAS Board of Trustees has this to say in her pleasure at his appointment:
“I am delighted that we are able to make this appointment of Prof Adam Habib as the next Director of SOAS. From an impressive field, he was the outstanding candidate to succeed Baroness Valerie Amos, our current Director.
His record of leadership in South Africa, his academic pedigree, his outspoken commitment to diversity and equality, his willingness to challenge received wisdom across society, his commitment to engagement with the student community and his vision on key issues such as decolonisation, make him a superb fit for SOAS and the values we share.”
I ask Staunton and those responsible for this rewarding of Habib, if they are aware of the disdain and anger that many indigenous South Africans have for him after his role in the utter brutalisation of Black students rising up in the Fees Must Fall movement and protest for the free education that was promised to them in the Freedom Charter? Are they aware that our Black majority views Habib as a hypocrite and a conduit for the racism that continuously plagues us?
The mention of ‘his commitment to engagement with the student community and his vision on key issues such as decolonisation’, begs some unpacking.
Let us take you back to Fees Must Fall over the period of 2015 to 2017.
It was during the Fees Must Fall uprising that Habib’s hypocritical and racist attitude was exposed through his consent to the politically-motivated brutalisation of indigenous African students in protest, which resulted in scores of students being maimed and many hospitalised through the attack on them – firstly through the deployment of private security and then through the apparatus of the state security cluster, both being let loose on students under Habib’s stewardship. Why does none of this seems to matter to the London University, which seemingly rewards him for his brutality. He gets to go abroad and leave the matter of reparations for the traumatised students untended to. He is not even asked to account for his role in the multiple atrocities against the student community. Afterall, he came across as ‘reasonable and on the side of the students’ in Rehad Desai’s film on the uprising titled Everything Must Fall, as one Fallist told me.
The question this throws up for me is why the global system continuously rewards those who willingly campaign against reasonable demands from the Black collective? I am further forced to ask if some minority group members view their claim to Blackness as just another stepping stone in their career. Where is this visceral connection to what it means to be Black and indigenous in South Africa and Habib’s part time Black status? How does Habib’s claim to Blackness resonate with the masses whom he so easily throws under the bus when it comes to protecting the neoliberal system? Is he in anyway, qualified to speak on behalf of, or even represent Africans? In my view he does not represent my experience of being African or Black in any shape or form.
His political expedience and selective ideological amnesia is a case in point. As a Xhosa adage summarises, he speaks from both sides of the mouth. He is notably Machiavellian in his ability to slither to any side of the ideological scale and pretend to be sympathetic toward the black economic and decolonial struggle, while simultaneously assisting the state, in partnership with white capital, to smash a youth struggle that threatens their status quo.
I am reminded of the ideological hypocrisy that forms the basis for the charlatan relations that currently exists between the racist Israeli government and the ANC government. On the one hand the ANC officially professes, on public platforms, to support the Palestinian people’s struggle for justice, while, on the other hand, some of its leaders are simultaneously doing business with Israeli entities in trading, allegedly including military components. It is also rumoured that the ruling party receives election funding from the South African Jewish Board of Deputies, a staunch supporter of the Israel policy of illegal occupation of Palestinian ancestral land. This ideological fraud is no different to Habib’s fraudulent claim to Blackness. As Biko denoted – Blackness is a state of mind.
And, just like FW de Klerk was rewarded with a Noble Peace for presiding over apartheid policies and protecting white monopoly capital while continuing to defend and paint the history of colonial and apartheid brutality with a veneer of respectability to the western world, Habib has been similarly rewarded with a Directorship position at SOAS at the University of London, for helping to defend and protect entrenched apartheid-based minority privileges and attitudes that trample on the basic rights of the indigenous majority. He too has painted the violence against Fallists in a veneer of respectability and this has obviously been swallowed hook line and sinker by his London colleagues.
This is the man who favoured the employment and deployment of militia from South Africa’s apartheid era as well as from war torn African countries, who are now employed in privately owned South African security companies. (These mercenaries, studies show, have most likely committed human rights atrocities against innocent civilians, including women, children and vulnerable elderly people in the countries of their origins before fleeing to or being head-hunted to South Africa.) It is obvious that, based on his conservative political considerations as well as being one of the pet gate-keepers favoured by white liberal South Africa, that Habib rubberstamped the employment of the former militia members precisely because they had no loyalty to, nor sympathy with, the struggles of oppressed ‘South African’ people.
What makes it worse is that these militia members are mostly in the employment and control of former apartheid security force officers who include members of apartheid ‘Death Squads’ commandos. These same security companies are often used in controversial political destabilisation of communities engaged in social transformation protest and Fees Must Fall was no different. These security bosses are often the very same players who were instrumental in the violence during the height of the liberation struggle against the apartheid regime and its state/business sponsored ‘so-called’ Black-On-Black violence, something that FW de Klerk still defends while denying ‘apartheid atrocities’ as a crime against humanity. Similarly Habib defends his heavy handed tactics against the black student collective and also denies the human rights atrocities enacted by the militia style war he facilitated against the students.
When Habib’s employed militia-type thugs could not put an end to the #FeesMustFall student protest, despite the well-orchestrated brutality towards the students, he requested and/or consented to the assistance of the Task Force Police – which escalated the brutality towards the students, as well as the workers, who had joined the protest for the promised free education and the decolonisation of the education system in the white minority dominated universities in South Africa.
Habib’s consent to the this militia style brutality on the WITS campus can be justifiably likened to the violent apartheid attack on the Black youth during the 1976 student uprising. Habib’s reckless Trump-style attitude and consent to the use of state brutality resulted in countless human-rights abuses and hundreds of young African students being maimed, many with serious injury resulting in a number of surgeries. Many faced jail time. The psychological trauma has also never been factored into the aftermath of #FMF and many of the students were, and continue to be, emotionally and psychologically traumatised by this brutality.
There is no doubt in my mind that the brutality was thus because it was a rising of majority Black students who were on the more radical side of the struggle. The Biko, Fanon and Sankara (ists) who were calling for a just, pro-black social order, received the worst of it. Habib, it seems, specifically targeted the EFF and PASMA students during his rule of terror over that period.
As a former leader of the 1976 student uprising in Cape Town, an ex Robben Island political prisoner and a filmmaker and social justice activist, I experienced and recorded this brutality directly and I state that the violence against the Black Child was no different to that engaged in by the apartheid state in 1976. Habib, in Voster-esque authority, was relentless in his will to smash the student uprising at any cost and he acted against the student community rather than with them.
What experience of indigenous African suffering and Black pain will Habib be speaking from when he arrogantly rubbishes Black Epistemology and Ontology in the current political and educational environment? In our indigenous African framework he is an upholder of the apartheid education system and just like many like-minded gate-keepers with ‘manufactured’ struggle credentials, he plays a key role in the sustaining of racist stereotyping of indigenous African people from his position as a beneficiary of the ongoing system of separate development that protects apartheid style minority privileges at the expense of the indigenous African majority.
It is also interesting to note that in certain inner-political circles in which the liberation struggle principles still exist, there are speculations about Habib’s struggle credentials, which, many have said, seem to have enjoyed a boost from the CIA allegedly placing him on the list of persona non-grata on US soil. The White-owned media houses created so much hype about this possible political stunt without probing any deeper than the surface, and one can only wonder at what their end game was. Habib’s name is nowhere to be found on the list of of the apartheid government’s formerly secret document listing the 7000 enemies of the apartheid state. Some say this stunt was a set-up to ratify his position as a gatekeeper using his ‘struggle credentials’, to give him some political legitimacy to infiltrate the African political environment for effective diversion. Who knows – but unfortunately this speculation is not easily his ignored given his pompous and off-the-cuff political rhetoric, which exposes his deeply held negative attitude towards the African people’s struggle for equality.
And again we have to ask what criterion the London University used in their appointment of this self-serving, pompous gate-keeper who masquerades behind the ‘Black Identity’ when it suits his mostly neoliberal agenda, as a suitable representative of the African subject?
How do we Africans come to terms with this affront to our collective psyche, especially in the face of Habib’s brutal repression of indigenous African students and his well-documented racism towards the indigenous African people? In his trope it is clear that Black Lives do not Matter. Why are the indigenous South African academics and intellectuals quiet about this hypocritical appointment of a known anti-black gatekeeper? What happened to the notion of authentic representation of the oppressed that was one of the mantras of the South African liberation struggle for justice , equality and democracy?
Does this mean there are no indigenous African intellectuals and academics qualified enough to head a Department of African and Oriental studies in the whole of the African continent, to a point where the hypocrites in London chose to appoint a purveyor of anti-black sentiment, and a rubber stamper of violence toward my people, as a representative of the historical and current Black condition in a country that pushes white business at the expense of all.
Adam Habib does not represent my African Identity any more than a white oppressor does. He must be called to account for his role in the multiple brutal aggressions aimed at Black students over Fees Must Fall. We will not rest until justice has been served.
Sipho Singiswa is a struggle veteran having been a student leader in Western Cape in the 1976 uprisings. He was arrested at the age of 15 by the apartheid police and spent 2 years in and out of solitary confinement in the apartheid prison system where he underwent months of torture. He was then sentenced to Robben Island for 5 years.His name is listed on the 7000 enemies of the apartheid state.
Click on these links to view the war against the Fallists on Wits Campus.
The Vulnerability of Black Boys With Regards To Violence
I’m writing this from the point of view of a queer black feminist who has done research on race and violence, and the ways that the two intersect with each other and other aspects of identity. I’m writing this from the position of a black woman who has been told by black men that gender issues should be an afterthought when it comes to black liberation. I’m also writing this from the point of view that if I am to be against violence as an oppression, then I have to be against violence no matter who it happens to. This includes victims of violence who may one day become perpetrators of violence against black women.
This article was first written up as a presentation at a seminar titled Philosophy Born of Struggle: A Philosophy Born of Massacres. My presentation was on Gender-based Violence against boys and men during armed conflict on the African continent, and the ways in which they are excluded from narratives of armed conflict gender-based violence victimology.
This is an unusual subject: that of gender base violence against a group that is not women. I say it like this intentionally: a group that is not women. This is because if you were to search gender based violence during armed conflict, you will have millions of hits where the overwhelming majority will be studies or policy around gender based violence against women, with men as victims being an extremely rare feature.
In this article, I’ll be speaking on gender-based violence against black men and boys in general terms, focusing on three points: the definition of gender with regards to gender based violence, recognition and acceptance of the phenomenon of gender based violence against men and boys, and lastly, the impact of race on the recognition of black men and boys as victims of violence.
What is “Gender” based violence?
Within gender based violence research, gender has been made into a synonym for women. This has led to most of the public translating gender to meaning “women”. Girls are included on the rare occasion. Gender-based Violence, to many scholars and lawmakers, is not violence perpetrated against a person because of their gender. It is violence perpetrated against women for the reason that they are women. One of the arguments in those cases is that since women make up the majority of victims of gender based violence during armed conflict, then it is only logical to associate gender in “gender-based violence” with women. Another argument is that men are not really victims since any violence that is perpetrated against them is almost always by other men, within the patriarchal system that men themselves have created with the intention of oppressing and bringing harm to women, and with violence that is sometimes intended for women. Children are hardly mentioned. Girls are added on occasion to the titles of studies, but hardly focused on, whether on their own or with women whom they are generally attached to. Boys are treated in almost the same way as men in that they are usually mentioned in the context of being perpetrators of violence, such as in the case of boy soldiers, but with the need to be saved due to being children. There has been a remedy to the situation of girls not being focused on with the creation of Girl’s Studies. While there has been a concerted effort to develop a field of study concerning men, little attention has been paid to boys. And most of these developments are happening outside of South Africa.
Boys straddle between the identities of violent patriarchal oppressors and innocent children. It is due to the latter that there has been any attention to boys within the framework of victims of violence. Even then, the attention to boys is too little, especially when we know how violence affects the development of children.
Recognition and acceptance of the phenomenon
Generally, with male victims of gender based violence, there is a lack of recognition of their victimhood. Even with fieldworkers, there is not just a lack of training in recognizing the different kinds of violence that can be perpetrated against men and boys, but there is also a general lack of awareness that violence against men and boys can be gender-based. It is as if patriarchy does not feature in the violence that men and boys experience.
The nuance that “boyhood” provides is that boys are considered children in peaceful circumstances. But in those “peaceful” circumstances, they are also seen through a patriarchal gaze of being the inheritors of the strength and violence of their male elders. This contradicts the innocence that is sometimes afforded to children. Boy children have to be recognized as children and therefore the violence that is perpetrated against children needs to be recognized. When boys are raised within a patriarchal paradigm, the result is that they grow up to be violent men. It is understandable that innocence no longer applies to them at this stage as more often than not, they are willing participants in the violence that is patriarchy, no matter who it is targeted against.
The fact that most men are willing participants in the violence that is patriarchy does not negate the fact that when other men are the targets of this violence due to their gender, they are victims of gender-based violence. Gender-based violence is gender-based violence no matter the gender of the perpetrator or their victim. Just because most men are willing participants in patriarchy does not negate that vulnerability.
There are many feminist researchers who think that men deserve it/they have it coming with regards to being victims of gender-based violence. Their argument is that gender-based violence occurs within a patriarchal framework. Gender-based violence against men is therefore an attack on men in a system that was initially designed to attack women and all that is feminine. Men are then victims of their own violent oppressive system. This is then deserved retribution.
We have to be careful with the way that we construct the victimology of victims of gender-based violence. If we lean into the understanding presented above, that men who are victims are victims of their own system, then we are actively legitimizing the patriarchal understanding of what a victim is, that “real men” are always perpetrators and never victims. We legitimize the patriarchal thought that weakness or victimhood is to be equated with femininity or womanhood. We legitimize the patriarchal though that femininity or womanhood should be on the receiving end of the violence of patriarchy. That means that even when women are the perpetrators of violence, what they are attacking in their victim regardless of gender, is femininity. We strengthen patriarchy with this logic.
There is a fear that if men are accepted as victims of gender-based violence, then the female victim/male perpetrator paradigm will be under attack. So what if this paradigm is weakened or torn apart? I am of the belief that we should be attending to the victims of gender-based violence, not attending to our own assumptions and patriarchal stereotypes.
We cannot talk about the dismissal of the fact that black boys and men can be victims of gender-based violence, without talking about the impact of race on this dismissal. It is important to take note of the racist stereotypes around black men and boys with regards to violence: black men are inherently violent. It dismisses the violence that this country has experienced that has influenced patriarchy and the way that boys grow into men and carry themselves around each other and around others. Violence has been an increasing part of the lives of black people in this country, especially with colonisation and apartheid. These violent oppressive systems have woven themselves into our society and made violence seem natural in our communities. Colonization and apartheid have contributed to the socialization of black boys and men into the kind of violence that we see today. This socialization disproves the racist stereotype of black men being inherently violent because if black boys grew into violent black men on their own, then socialization into violence would not need to happen.
Just as we have been socialized by white supremacy to believe that black men are inherently violent, through that, we have been socialized to believe that black boys, and especially black men, have no vulnerability. Through accepting that black boys and men are socialized to be violent, we then accept that black boys and men are vulnerable to gender-based violence. If we accept this, we also need to accept that the socialization of black boys and black men into violence is a violation of black boys and black men.
The Impact of Neglect and COVID-19 0n Robben Island Ex-Political Prisoners.
The working class of the world is accustomed to the annual public celebrations of May Day. It is a day that is associated with, and celebrates the international workers’ struggles and victories against economic andsocial injustices of a brutal capitalist system. Every year on May 1st the working class takes to the streets and public squares to celebrate May Day. But sadly, the 2020 May Day was celebrated very differently from the usual celebrations to which people around the world have become accustomed, thanks to the COVID-19 outbreak around the world.
Government shutdowns or lockdown restrictions of movements, social activity and gatherings imposed on the citizens amidst fears of the COVID-19 pandemic spread, have dampened and muted the long anticipated celebrations. Workers around the globe have been forced to quietly celebrate May Day in the privacy of their homes.
Not only has the outbreak of the COVID-19 caused a lot of uncertainty and instability for the exploited working class across the globe, but its negative impact on required radical socio-economic transformation as envisaged and propagated in programmes of national liberation in various Underdeveloped Countries, will be felt long after the restrictions have been lifted.
Genuine programmes of national liberation propagated and advanced during the national liberation struggle have long been abandoned by various governments in favour of neoliberal policies. The Covid 19 pandemic has worsened increasing unemployment, job insecurity, and mass poverty. For the many already poverty-stricken families the heightened levels of insecurity spurred on by anticipation of a bleak future and exacerbated hardships have also heightened people’s stress and depression levels, impacting their mental health.
For South Africans the COVID-19 social distancing restrictions also meant that they would not be able to take to the streets to celebrate in their usual way the historical 27th April Annual Freedom Day Celebrations – which are immediately followed by May Day celebrations in the same week this year.
We want to encourage workers around the world to stay focused on the agenda for justice for all workers, despite the lockdown, so that we may continue with the program for national and international worker’s emancipation.
InternationalRacism And Human Rights Violations.
We have witnessed on a daily basis on our TV screens, politicians and religious leaders, assisted by an international army of celebrities across the globe, on COVID-19 awareness campaigns of a grand scale. At the same time we also note with a great deal of concern, that at the height of this pandemic there has been a marked increase in racial stereo-typing and brutal human rights violations directed against indigenous African people in both their native and foreign countries.
We also saw disturbing images of African people undeniably being singled out for indiscriminate random testing and isolation after being stigmatised by Chinese nationals as the source and carriers of the virus to China. Their rights were violated when they were unlawfully and forcibly denied access to, and evicted from their residencies and food stores/outlets, as well as separated from their Chinese spouses. What is even more disturbing is they were also barred from access to sanitation and bathrooms, as well as access to safe environments. This effectively rendering them more vulnerable to the potential risk of exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic and more racial abuse.
Prior to the well publicised COVID-19 outbreak in China, we had also heard allegations of a number of other racially-inspired random attacks by Chinese criminal gangs targeting people and students from Africa. Not much seems to have been done by the Chinese authorities to stem out this rising trend. Sadly, there also seems to be very little protest by African government leaders about this.
When representative African embassies in China were alerted to the problem and asked to intervene they played hide and seek or pleaded lockdown restrictions and passed the buck to the Chinese authorities who simply pleaded ignorance, and chased the Africans away from the police precincts to which they had been referred. The Africans were forced to sleep in unprotected open spaces with no access to sanitation, water and toilet facilities.
ERIEF, an association representing hundreds of South African liberation struggle veterans and former political prisoners, understands and appreciates the historical relationship the indigenous African peoples’ liberation struggle movements have had with China, preceding the very significant bilateral trade relations between African countries and the People’s Republic Of China.
However, on this 2020 May Day, when we are reminded of the lives and the hardship still endured by the workers of the global community at the hands of corporate giants, we are equally shocked, disappointed and saddened by the knowledge that in this day and age such racist sentiments and acts against African people seem to flourish with impunity in China.
That said, we now call upon the Chinese authorities to take immediate corrective measures and swift action against its Chinese nationals who are involved and guilty in the said racist-inspired abuses and attacks of African people in China.
Human Rights abuses in South Africa
ERIEF also wants to bring to the immediate attention of the South African people that such racial stereotyping of African people as seen in countries such as China appears to be reinforced by some African state leaders. The South African government’s dehumanising attitude towards the reported brutality meted out against the African majority who are still confined to a life of hardship and abject poverty, is noted with alarm. This systemic violence takes place in apartheid created over crowded townships and shackland squatter camps that still exist in a so-called liberated South Africa.
The government imposed COVID-19 restrictions and social distance regulations that the police and the army have been deployed to enforce have been a challenge to observe for the African people condemned to the misery and squalid living conditions of these townships due to the very problem of the apartheid infrastructure that the current government has done little to reverse.
Consequently, South Africans have witnessed scenes reminiscent of the olden days when the apartheid regime had deployed its army of soldiers and state sponsored brutality in almost all the African townships that were in the grips of revolt against its white rule. However, as it has always been, in the traditionally minority white areas and other minority communities there is a much more relaxed approach in the application of these restrictions.
This is in stark contrast to the townships where in the course of enforcing the restrictions numerous cases of abuse and brutality have been reported. It is alarming to us that a total number of five (5) innocent people have died in quick succession after being brutally assaulted and left unattended to by both the police and soldiers patrolling the township streets.
It is of grave concern to the ERIEF that many people participating in the global awareness campaign, especially the African government and religious leaders, have chosen to turn a blind eye to these injustices being committed in the name of COVID-19 and in favour of western-foreign aid whose sole purpose is, unfortunately, to re entrench the syndrome of Africa’s dependency on the west.
Neglected ex political prisoners.
For the liberation struggle veterans, who a few days ago quietly celebrated Freedom Day on 27th, April, followed by the May Day celebrations, the outbreak of the COVID-19 has also brought into sharp focus the reminder of the impoverished social circumstances experienced by thousands of marginalised former political prisoners. ERIEF notes that, despite the South African government’s COVID-19 provisions for a national relief fund, there has been no formalised social relief provision to cater to the desperate needs of the marginalised majority of ex-political prisoners.
ERIEF is distressed by the thought that a significant number of the marginalised liberation struggle veterans, including the elderly, sickly and homeless, together with their families, may be the victims of the reported brutality of police and army’s COVID-19 enforcement in the townships.
ERIEF wants to remind all South Africans that racism and racial stereotypes that are manifested in several countries constitute an affront to human dignity as well as the values and goals of the national liberation struggle and the authentic program of liberation. Similarly, the reported acts of violence and the brutality from certain elements of the Security forces in our country should not only be condemned, but the perpetrators should face the full might of the law.
The Covid 19 virus and its associated lockdown restrictions and regulations have, yet again, revealed to us of the high levels of social and economic inequalities in our country. These are manifested in squalid living conditions in African townships where access to water and sanitation and other basic needs facilities are either absent or inadequate.
ERIEF calls upon African governments to speak out and condemn racism and all forms of injustice meted out against African people. National and economic sovereignty and socio-economic development of the majority of the population in Africa should never be compromised in favour of Western -based foreign aid and its complex conditionalities.
Furthermore, ERIEF is very disturbed by the heartless attitude of the Ex-Political Prisoners Associations (EPPA), Makana Trust and Makana Investment Corporation leadership which, instead of addressing all ex-political prisoners and their dependents’s welfare during this time of difficulty, it chose to assume a state responsibility and function of paying the full salaries of the employees of a government institution while thousands of the marginalised ex-political prisoners and their families are left to fend off for themselves.
This is in direct violation of the overall objective of the EPPA and Makana Trust, as well as in contradiction to both entities’ stated constitutions and laws governing a trust in South Africa. It does not make sense that entities such as Makana Trust and the EPPA that have a long history of pleading poverty whenever called upon to assist its distressed founding members and rightful beneficiaries, the ex-political prisoners and their dependents, are now dishing out bailout funds to a government institution at the expense of the poverty-stricken ex-political prisoners. This is an unforgivable betrayal to all the marginalised ex-political prisoners in South Africa.
Call for justice.
As we call upon the South African government, civil society organizations, workers unions, community and religious leaders to immediately address this injustice and the overall shameful social circumstances of the liberation struggle veterans and their dependents, we wish to also remind the government of the veterans’ life and limb sacrifices that contributed towards the realisation of what is being, both 27th April and May Day, celebrated by millions of South Africans on these historically significant days in their lives.
South Africans need to know and appreciate that as they celebrate the 27th April Freedom Day and May Day annually, the majority of the liberation struggle veterans, the real foot soldiers of the liberations struggle who made the life sacrifices for these freedoms to be realised and celebrated, are now unemployed, poverty-stricken and some even homeless. Something needs to be done about this sorry state of affair.
ERIEF wants to also take, on behalf of all its member liberation struggle veterans, this opportunity to express its sadness and heartfelt condolences to the loved ones and family of Cde Denis Goldberg at the news of his passing away on Wednesday 29, April 2020.
As we bid our farewell to and salute Cde Denis Goldberg’s contribution and sacrifice in the service of the liberation struggle for justice; equality; freedom; democracy and peace we must also spare a thought for the many marginalised liberation struggle veterans and strengthen our resolve to address the dire and shameful social circumstances of all liberation struggle veterans indiscriminately.