‘Coconuts’ leave ‘Blacks only’ meeting
Posted by Don Packett under Current Affairs on February 28 2008 at 10:29 AMI have two issues with this:
1. A meeting was held with Jacob Zuma and the Forum of Black Journalists. All white journalists were asked to leave the meeting.
2. When 2 non-white journalists stood up and left the meeting along with the whiteys, they were called ‘coconuts‘.
Okay, I understand the fact that a Forum of Black Journalists will not consist of any white folk, but a meeting held with the soon-to-be-president of this country, who has plenty of contempt for press freedom and claiming the media are ‘minority voices out of tune with the majority in the country’, should, in my opinion, be allowed to be viewed ad documented by all journalists, regardless of race.
Something just doesn’t seem right. Imagine Helen Zille held a press conference for only white journalists, the shit would hit the fan instantly. Racial discrimination, either way, is not only against the constitution, but it’s also just nasty.
I’m still not fully sure how I feel about this, all I know is that something is dodgy, and with Zuma’s dodgy past, I don’t think I’m far from right.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
This “black only” thing is starting to really piss me off…..its become reverse apartheid! I accept change but not to conditions in their favour – make it in everyones favour(my opinion only!)
February 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I’m with you on this one, I’m actually currently working on a documentary about life after the Mandela years and how his work has been trampled on.
Racism is racism, I don’t give a flying fuck what colour you are, but if you start banning one race from doing something, there is nothing to separate you from the racists of yesteryear.
What really grinds my goat is that it’s acceptable to the majority of people I work with on this documentary, their attitude is that it happened to them so why can’t they do it back.
Zuma scares the shit out of me
February 28th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Well, yeah, this “blacks-only” journalism forum is crazy in more than one way. I think, though ‘supposedly’ it was aimed primarily at “black journalists”, prohibition on who was allowed to be there is crazy. Free press, anybody?
However, one does need to consider this:
1) At a private function – which this was – admittance is strictly reserved. Essentially, to put it in lay-man’s terms: nothing illegal took place here and they had the constitutional right to ask the white journalists to leave. Be clear, I’m not saying I agree – because I do not – but they were acting within constitutional grounds (with questionable ethics, of course).
2) Yeah, Don, you are right, if Helen had a “whites-only” thing, people would have a sh*t, though, at the same time, as above, it won’t be illegal. Helen’s not exactly Theresa, but that’s a matter for another post
.
3) The real stress for me is this came up right after the Swartruggens shootings, day-to-day with Irvin Khosa’s royal K-bomb blunder and merely a week before the University of Free State controversy (which should get face time on Joblog, I believe). South Africa, as far as I can tell, has a lot of racial tension emerging and rearing its ugly, little head. I’m scared it may actually become a more overt “them against us” situation which will sadden me. (let’s be clear, I’m of the believe it’s always been a covert “them against us” situation but people, up ’til now, have been pretty passive and ammicable. It may change.)
February 28th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Here’s hoping dude.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
What part of “Black Journalists Forum” do white journalists not understand? They weren’t invited and had no right, Constitutional or otherwise, to impose their presence on a private, special-interest gathering. There are associations of black journalists in many countries, such as the National Association of Black Journalists in the USA. You don’t see white journalists there kicking up a fuss because they aren’t allowed to attend meetings, etc. The only bothersome thing about this whole silly controversy is that so many white South Africans still have such an immature and ignorant attitude to the realities of history and politics, so many years after our transition to democracy.
March 1st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Yeah Travis, and calling people ‘coconuts’ is the mature thing?
What do you mean by white South Africans still have such an immature and ignorant attitude to the realities of history and politics?
March 4th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Travis – have you read all the meadia about this properly? Its not that the white journalists have kicked up a fuss about not being allowed to attend – IT WAS AN OPEN MEDIA FORUM FOR JOURNALISTS in the begining! There were no conditions for invite based on memebers / non-members, race etc. But once it had started the “white journalists” were told to leave. According to UN International Conventions, the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, EXCLUSION, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. I agree Don, what do you mean by white South Africans still have such an immature and ignorant attitude to the realities of history and politics? Travis – for your interest, check this out!http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Jon_Qwelane/0,,2-1630-1633_2281192,00.html
March 5th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
But some language-groups do it on the basis of their lingo – and get away with it pretty successfully. They’ve done so for many years. Go figure.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Then Jon Qwelane had this to say:
http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Jon_Qwelane/0,,2-1630-1633_2281192,00.html
and then this, and I quote, “If there is a new form of oppression where white people are oppressed, let’s not call it racism, let’s call it something else.” is this for real! good gahd!
March 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I think senile dementia has hit Jon Qwelane. He can’t give a simple explanation for the term ‘Coconut’ – which is ‘white on the inside and black (or brown) on the outside’. In this morning’s Citizen he is quoted as making this preposterous statement:
“The definition of ‘black’ is a very cerebral thing. It’s not necessarily the colour of a person’s skin, but their state of mind.” ‘Scusi? Huh? Smoking his socks or wot?
He was given the heave-ho from Radio 702 and I think he sees this as his opportunity to nail the Kirsch family. There’s more than a hint of anti-semitism seeping through his comments. He’s disappointed me with his intemperate rantings.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
HAHAHA:
http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Jon_Qwelane/0,,2-1630-1633_2285357,00.html