SHOOT: NEWS24 published an article by a reader that has causes a ruckus. The writer basically criticises an article by Peter Hitchens published in London's Daily Mail (and commented on at this site some hours ago). Hitchens basically says the situation in South Africa is really grim. Longman says it isn't. Then South Africans let rip, most of the comments I read disagreed with Longman, saying: Yes, the situation is indeed grim.
SHOOT puts it this way. If you are alive, right now, your situation is grim. If you live in South Africa where unemployment is about 3 times the US figure (and they are going nuts), and you think everything is FINE, you and your climate phobic friends ought to gather yourselves up and find a wall somewhere and run into it. Chances are you wouldn't see it coming at you before the lights went out.
SHOOT puts it this way. If you are alive, right now, your situation is grim. If you live in South Africa where unemployment is about 3 times the US figure (and they are going nuts), and you think everything is FINE, you and your climate phobic friends ought to gather yourselves up and find a wall somewhere and run into it. Chances are you wouldn't see it coming at you before the lights went out.
This article is an utter load of codswallop.
|
4 comments:
Nick, I feel you have missed the point of my article. I was not implying that everything is wonderful in SA. At the same time, my argument is that Peter Hitchens does not present an unbiased and objective assessment of the country. I am optimistic about SA, and will remain so as long as possible.
Alistair I don't think I've missed the point and I'm disagreeing with your argument. I think in the book The Road less Travelled [M. Scott Peck] starts off saying 'Life is difficult'. Once you have accepted this is true you can begin to invest yourself in finding solutions etc. My impression is that you try not to admit or accept that life - in South Africa, is *particularly* difficult.
You say:
"I am optimistic about SA, and will remain so as long as possible. "
I'm sure you will, and therein lies the problem. I lived abroad for some years and only while outside of the SA experience, seeing the country through thier media's eyes in a fairly by-the-way manner of reporting, to you realise the crazy conditions under which we allow ourselves to live. Because we are immersed in the experience of crime, unemployment, poverty,disease and corruption, we treat all of these as though they are (non-negotiably) a part of life in South Africa. They are, and they shouldn't be. These issues aren't discussed daily, many aren't even on the agenda. This is why a man like Selebi is suprised that crime is a problem, and statistics are fudged to meet with our perceptions. And this is because there are many holdouts like yourself who insist that 'things aren't so bad'.
It is not about optimism or pessimism, simply about an ability to appreciate the nature of what things are, and they are far from good. Doing something constructive starts with taking a proper look at things as they are, but most men are unable to do that. Because this has consequences, responsibilities and accountabilities.
veryone who reads your sentiments is encouraged in this entropy that as long as we believe things are OK we can continue to do nothing about it (because nothing needs to be done), an excuse to 'wait and see, hope for a better solution'.
So there is not even consensus that there is a problem (in other words, a starting point).
This is far from good enough. But your attitude is similar the world over in how we deal with everything from energy, to war, to the environment. That optimism is really delusion dressed up, as you say, for 'as long as possible'.
We are far from consensus on some of the most basic and urgent priorities because no one can agree what is important or even that there is a problem. Thanks to agents of foolish talk like yourself that attempt to broadcast your 'wisdom' to the rest. You have a right to do this obviously, but do have an idea of the cost of our collective intransigence?
Nick, my sentiments are not couched from the perspective of someone who wants to be blind to reality. You emphasise that this is not about optimism or pessimism - I agree 100%. It's about looking at substantiated facts and drawing conclusions. Hitchens' article is filled with exaggerations and spurious facts (there really are too many to mention in one sitting) - I am not comfortable that he portrays a realistic and an emotionally detached or objective viewpoint. I would never deny a host of uncomfortable problems in SA, but I will continue to question how different the politic and social environment would be if we had gone through 15 years of democratic rule under any other party.
I also take issue with folks who live in SA who remain deeply pessimistic about the outlook; when many of these self-same folks live in decent houses and have jobs, and have a generally good standard of living. Much of the political rhetoric aimed at painting a dismal picture of this country comes from folks who don't have terrible lives.
I have been a victim of a hijacking and I have also lived overseas for 3 years myself - my personal experience is not one which comes from a "foolishly uninformed" perspective. I try not to blame the prevailing political party for my misfortune and I will remain optimistic because I'd prefer not to lice a life of misery. I try not to confuse my own optimism with a bland acceptance of the status quo - I earnestly believe that we need to question and work towards change. I'm not sure why my attack on a viewpoint from a foreigner, that I believed was less than objective, is labelled as "intransigence" when you are depicting exactly the same trait?
Tell you what Alistair. Let's agree to disagree. I believe by putting a positive spin on South Africa you give an already apathetic citizenry, especially whites who are virtually not politically active at all, a license to 'wait and see', to do nothing, to 'hope things get better'. Since we're immersed in our own situation we don't see it for what it is. Unacceptable. And so as soon as someone says this, people like you jump in and soothe what might have been a conscious response (to do something about a problem). People like myself are called doomsayers and alarmists. We will see where optimism gets us especially for the next few months and years. What we've needed is a sense of reality, and I'd argue our foreign friend provided that. That's how I see it. If you want to argue the finer points do that. But all you do is muddy an issue whgich is quiote obvious. Things are badly out of whack and a response is needed. To respond people need to agree to respond. You are part of that confusion which says, hold on, are things really so bad. Let's debate that and spend some time deciding how we feel. The result is that conditions worsen. This same trend is true in the rest of the world in everything from economics to climate change. The problem is a lot of noise messing up the clairy of ordinary signals of alarm that don't register for what they are because they're mixed up in all the dissension of voices clamouring to be heard.
Post a Comment