Etiket: Stanley Kurtz

Leon Lemmer: The New York Times se proslawe- en proswart-projek (Deel 2)

Ek het reeds ‘n algemene karakterisering van The New York Times (hierna die Times) se 1619-projek verskaf, asook Phillip Magness se kommentaar daarop (Praag 5.12.2020). Hierdie rubriek handel oor Peter W Wood (gebore in 1953) se beter en veel meer omvattende boek oor dieselfde onderwerp: 1620: A critical response to the 1619 Project (New York: Encounter Books, 2020, 272p, $18,00). “My real agenda is to illuminate what the 1619 Project means for America” (Kindle 3091).

Ek veronderstel dat lesers kennis geneem het van wat ek in my vorige rubriek geskryf het. Soos sy kollega en vriend, Stanley Kurtz (Praag 8.08.2020), is Wood ‘n sosiale of kulturele antropoloog (656). Albei is behoudend; iets wat uitsonderlik in daardie geledere is. Wood noem sy benadering “conservative and traditionalist” (121). Wood is reeds ‘n dekade lank die president van die Amerikaanse National Association of Scholars (379), met as missie “to sustain the tradition of reasoned scholarship and civil debate in American colleges and universities” – iets wat baie nodig is, al sou ‘n mens geneig wees om te dink dat universiteite vanselfsprekend sodanig moet wees.

Om propagandistiese redes verhef die Times 1619 tot die aanvangsjaar van Amerika se geskiedenis. Dit is toe die eerste slawe daar voet aan wal gesit het. Dit is die 2019-voortsetting van hierdie koerant se “The Truth Is Worth It”-veldtog waarmee in 2017 begin is (785). Historici is egter geneig om eerder 1620 (die aankoms van die Mayflower met die Pelgrims in Plymouth), 1630 (die aankoms van die Puriteine in Salem, ‘n gemeenskap wat volgens John Winthrop “a city upon a hill”* sou wees – 2432) of 1776 (die verklaring van onafhanklikheid van Brittanje, met as regte “equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” – 1676) as die eintlike beginjaar van Amerika se kenmerkende geskiedenis te beskou. “The Mayflower Compact** … pointed the way toward America’s self-government” (159). Dit is waarom die hooftitel van die boek 1620 is – ‘n ontkenning van die deurslaggewende belang van die slawe in die vorming van die wesenlike aard van die Amerikaanse samelewing. Die 1619-projek stel die Amerikaanse geskiedenis voor as vier eeue van rassistiese onderdrukking terwyl Wood meen dat dit eerder om vryheid (“liberty”) en geregtigheid (“justice”) vir almal gegaan het. “America was never a ‘slavocracy'” (159).

[* “n Stad wat op ‘n berg lê, kan nie weggesteek word nie” (Matteus 5:14).

** Kyk hier onder. Die Mayflower Compact gee, volgens Wood, “the first glimmer of the American republic” (394).]

In die voorwerk verwys Kurtz na “the 1619 Project’s mendacity” en noem dit ‘n “exercise in manipulation” (2). William Allen bestempel Wood se boek “as the most comprehensive response to the ill-fated 1619 Project,” onder meer “pinpointing its consistent resort to misrepresentation that cannot be dismissed as merely different interpretations … The 1619 Project failed … Its purpose was cultural shakedown” (11). Mary Grabar noem dat Wood die Times se herskrywing/transformasie (“reframing”) van Amerika se geskiedenis ontbloot as “the jumble of lies, half-lies, logical fallacies, bad history, and bad faith of a project motivated by greed and hatred of America” (19).* Magness het ook Wood se boek verwelkom (23). Wat Wood volgens Robert Paquette doen, is “to clear away the dangerous rubbish put forth by the 1619 Project” (31). Dit is die soort kritiek wat ook teen Patric Tariq Mellet se boek, The lie of 1652 (Praag 10.10.2020), geopper kan word. In Mellet se geval is die hoofmotivering skynbaar om afkeer, indien nie haat nie, teen Suid-Afrika se blankes, veral Afrikaners, te saai.

[* Grabar se boek, Debunking the 1619 Project, is geskeduleer om op 7 September 2021 te verskyn (Kindle $17,24).]

Wood begin sy voorwoord met verwysing na Christopher Columbus, wat tradisioneel as die ontdekker, in 1492, van die Nuwe Wêreld, die Amerikas, erken word. Toe het slawerny reeds eeue lank – “from time immemorial” (293) – in die Amerikas bestaan. Die aankoms van slawe in Jamestown in 1619 behoort dus nie opgeblaas te word asof dit van hemelskuddende belang is nie. “The year 1492 changed the world, but not by introducing slavery to the Americas” (306). Vóór die aankoms van die blankes was die inheemse bevolking onderhewig aan baie erger dinge as gedwonge arbeid. “Captured people fed the almost industrial level of human sacrifice at the center of the Aztec Empire” (296), insluitende kannibalisme. Setlaars van Britse oorsprong was ook nie die eerste blanke eienaars van swart Afrika-slawe in Amerika nie. “Some of the African slaves were sent to Spanish settlements along what is now the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. In 1526, Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón established a settlement on the coast of Georgia, San Miguel de Gualdape, supplied by African slaves. Enslaved African men were frequently assigned to oversee native American slaves … [They] were infamous for the brutality with which they treated them” (318).

Die 1619-projek dank sy benaming aan die meer as 20 slawe wat in 1619 aan boord van die White Lion in Jamestown, Virginia, aangekom het. Wat die Times na bewering wil doen, is: “On the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully” (329). Die teenwoordigheid van hierdie slawe, volgens die Times,”inaugurated a barbaric system of chattel slavery that would last for the next 250 years [until 1865]. This is sometimes referred to as the country’s original sin, but it is more than that: It is the country’s very origin” (333).

Daardie “slawe” was in werklikheid nie amptelik slawe nie “because [in 1619] slavery was not recognized by English common law” (524). “In Virginia, the records show that many of the captives were, after a term of indenture, set free. None were recorded as slaves” (527). “When the records of this time refer to ‘slaves’, they generally mean Englishmen who had been convicted of crimes and who were punished by a period of involuntary servitude” (538). “The best term for the condition of the involuntary immigrants of 1619 is ‘servitude’ … The transition to slavery lay years into the future” (550).

“The Times’ sloppiness about historical facts is one reason to approach with caution its claims about 1619 as the decisive moment in America’s descent into racial despotism” (585). Die besware van vyf gesaghebbende historici teen die 1619-projek is op 29 Desember 2019 in die Times gepubliseer (601). “Refusing to correct any of the inaccuracies he [Jake Silverstein, the magazine editor] explains: “Historical understanding is not fixed … differing views exist” (604). Die onderliggende euwel hier het ‘n naam, naamlik postmodernisme. Daarvolgens is feite nie meer deurslagggewend nie. Dit gaan by uitstek om vrye vertolking, dus om te maak soos jy wil. ‘n Feit word verwring tot ‘n aanname (951). “Postmodernism favors the stories told by the ‘oppressed’. It divides society into two parts, the privileged and those whom the privileged exploit” (955). “The poor and oppressed … enjoy a special kind of truth-telling” (958).

Silverstein skryf: “What we hoped our project would do: expand the reader’s sense of the American past” (612). Wood noem dit “mythology” (616), “pseudohistory” (808) en “fake history” (612) – dus “deliberate misinformation” (2974). Dit is “a new way of looking at our history through the lens of racial oppression” (623). “The 1619 Project aims to unseat white supremacy” (962). Sedert 1994 ervaar ons in Suid-Afrika blatante swart heerssugtigheid, maar het u al ooit die frase “black supremacy” as ‘n verwyt gehoor? Nee, daar is net “white supremacy” en natuurlik ook uitsluitlik blanke “rassisme”. Daar is “appeal[s] to black pride” (966) wanneer die geskiedenis en werklikheid gebuig/getransformeer word. Daarteenoor is daar verguising van die blankes. In die byderwetse politiek is daar blykbaar niks waarop die blankes met reg trots kan of mag wees nie.

‘n Interessante opmerking is dat Amerikaanse slawe vyf en ‘n halwe dag per week gewerk het (670). In my jeug het die meeste werknemers so ‘n werkweek gehad. In die meeste gevalle het die halfdag se werk op Saterdae later weggeval. Deesdae is ‘n vyfdag-werkweek ‘n algemene verskynsel. Michael le Cordeur het al herhaaldelik beweer dat slawe aan die Kaap net een dag in die jaar vry gehad het. Byvoorbeeld: “Destyds moes die slawe elke dag werk. Hulle het een dag in die jaar af gehad: die dag ná Nuwejaar” (WAM Carstens en Michael le Cordeur, reds, Ons kom van vêr, Tygervallei: Naledi, 2016, p 264). Dit is glo die rede waarom die Klopse Kaapstad tradisioneel jaarliks op 2 Januarie op horings geneem het. Daar is volgens Le Cordeur “‘n ryk en hartseer geskiedenis” agter daardie “uitbundigheid” (258). Die vraag is of hy, soos die Times, nie doelbewus lieg ter bevordering van sy pro-nieblanke en anti-blanke gesindheid nie. Historici kan gerus uitspraak oor Le Cordeur se bewering lewer.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, die Times-joernalis en hoofaktivis van die 1619-projek, bevorder die slawe- en swartsaak deur die destydse gebeure soos volg te verwoord: “Those men and women who came ashore on that August [1619] day were the beginning of American slavery. They were among the 12.5 million Africans who would be kidnapped from their homes and brought in chains across the Atlantic Ocean in the largest forced migration in human history until the Second World War” (686). Sy noem nie dat die swart slawe deur mede-swartes gevange geneem is nie. Nog minder verwys sy na slawerny binne Afrika wat baie langer as die trans-Atlantiese slawerny geduur het en veel groter afmetings aangeneem het. Arabiere het ook ‘n baie groter rol as blankes in slawerny gespeel, maar hulle word nie naasteby in dieselfde mate daarvoor verkwalik nie. Wood skryf: “Untold millions of Africans had been trafficked by Arabs and others for perhaps a thousand years before the Atlantic slave trade began. While a heartbreaking 12.5 million Africans were transported across the Atantic, the number shipped to North America was only 388 000. Hannah-Jones fires her indignation at British North America, but she loads her weapon with numbers from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Brazil” (690).

Wood skryf: “The slaves who landed in Virginia were the first we know of who were brought to an English colony on the North American mainland. That indeed is something, but is it the country’s ‘very origin’?” (341). Wood vra: “If the project succceeds in making slavery the distinguishing aspect of American history, what are the likely consequences for the nation?” (364) en “On whose intellectual authority did the Times make the audacious claims that are the substance of the 1619 Project?” (368). “The 1619 Project came from somewhere, and I suspect it came mostly out of our universities, in which radical identitarian politics and theories of racial oppression have long been taking shape. The way American history is taught in colleges and universities has some bearing on how the Times now believes American history should be taught in grade schools and high schools across the country” (383).

Wood beskryf die Mayflower Compact, die gelofte wat die Pelgrim-setlaars in 1620 aan boord van die skip afgelê het, as ‘n “agreement on how they would conduct themselves once they got on shore” (408). Sodanige onderneming was nodig omdat hulle in Plymouth aanvanklik nie in die Britse kolonie by Jamestown en dus onderhewig aan Britse wette was nie (412). “By penning the Compact … they planted a seed. The document sketched, for the first time in European settlement of the New World, an ideal of self-government based on justice” (422). Die Pelgrims se ideaal was “our better ordering and preservation [as a community] … for the general good” (433). “[The Compact] had a sense of common identity, a ‘we’ that spoke for ‘us'” (2428). “The colonists agreed to a form of democracy” (1708). Die Compact was ‘n gelofte aan God, “the most unbreakable promise of all” (436). Gestel die ANC het, voordat hy in 1994 die politieke mag oorgeneem het, die Amerikaanse Pelgrims se voorbeeld nagevolg en ‘n etiese kode opgestel waaraan die ANC-regime sou voldoen. As dit vir hulle erns was, hoeveel beter kon die Nuwe Suid-Afrika nie gewees het nie? Nou steek Suid-Afrika baie sleg by Amerika en ander Westerse lande af. Die staatskas word rot en kaal gesteel. In 1996 is daar wel ‘n etiese kode vir alle parlementslede daargestel, maar die toepassing is klaarblyklik gebrekkig.

Wood vra: “Was the arrival of the White Lion at Jamestown [in 1619] really the founding event of what would become the American republic? No. It was something but not that – a minor incident that casts light on a small-scale society that as yet had no firm boundaries or abiding sense of purpose” (704). Hoekom kom Hannah-Jones weg met oordrywing en die verkondiging van onwaarhede? Omdat sy deur die Times se dubbele standaarde bevoordeel word. “Hannah-Jones had achieved a position of some authority at the newspaper and was in many respects exempt from ordinary forms of accountability” (823). “[She] had been challenged on what might be called matters of journalistic integrity” (827). Maar die Times verkies om kritiek te ignoreer “and to create a bubble in which everyone appears to agree with their views” (848).

Hannah-Jones “knew in advance that ‘almost every aspect of American life’ has ‘to do with slavery’: this judgment precedes the ‘rigorous scholarship’ she says was undertaken” (855). “Mostly, Hannah-Jones goes in search of hidden racism” (884). Sy is selfs gunstig beïndruk met die onrus wat daar na die dood van die swart George Floyd – die nek-episode – in Mei 2020 uitgebreek het en noem dit “the 1619 Riots” (904). Sy het hierdie oproer geregverdig “as an appropriate response to black oppression” (1461). Sy het selfs beweer: “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence” (1465) en “I think I would not describe looting as violence. Looting is property damage” (1469). “Often, the Negro does not even want what he takes. He wants the experience of taking. Negroes have committed crimes, but they are the derivative crimes, and they are born of the greater crimes of the white society” (1473). In Suid-Afrika is daar baie swartes wat “the experience of taking” het. Maar daar is ook baie wat nog nie gesteel het nie. Hoe sou die land lyk as almal van hulle daardie ervaring opdoen? Dit is gewoon irrasioneel en dwaas om te beweer dat die vernietiging van bv skole en biblioteke, asook die stroping van winkels, nie geweld is nie maar bloot die beskadiging van vervangbare eiendom.

Die 1619-projek in sy geheel geniet voorspelbaar die ondersteuning van Oprah Winfrey (908, 1501). Waaraan mense soos Hannah-Jones en Winfrey ly, is historiese ongeletterdheid (936). Hulle ken nie , of stel nie belang in, die outentieke geskiedenis nie en verkies om dit volgens hulle wense te herskryf. Daardie getransformeerde geskiedenis vind al hoe meer neerslag in skole en aan universiteite, ook in Suid-Afrika. “Much of American education has privoted from teaching to messaging” (944). Dit is eintlik blatante linkse propaganda. Dit gebeur nie net in die vak geskiedenis nie, maar in die geval van universiteite by uitstek in al die humaniora en sosiale wetenskappe. Hierdie akademies-wetenskaplike verval is onlangs gesaghebbend geboekstaaf in Helen Pluckmore en James Lindsay se boek, Critical theories: How universities made everything about race, gender, and identity – and why this harms everybody (2020, Kindle $25,86).

In hoofstuk 4 reduseer Wood die kern van die 1619-projek tot vyf stellings of kwessies: [1] “The American Revolution was fought to protect American slave owners from the threat of abolition by the British authorities” (983). [2] Matthew Desmond se standpunt “that plantation slavery was the foundation of American capitalism” (990). [3] “The nation’s history is best understood as a struggle by American blacks against white supremacy” (990). [4] Abraham Lincoln “was a racist whose primary intent was to keep blacks and whites separate” (987). [5] “For the most part, black Americans fought back alone” (987). Aan elk van [1] tot [4] wy Wood ‘n hoofstuk. In my vorige rubriek is hulle ook bespreek.

[5] het so min substansie dat Wood dit dadelik afhandel. Dit is blankes, in Brittanje en Amerika, wat die leiding in die vrystelling van die slawe geneem het (990), “an antislavery crusade that was unique in the history of the world” (1056). Dit is blankes wat ná die Burgeroorlog die Grondwet aangepas het – die vrystelling van die slawe in 1865; ook in bv die 1960’s weens die burgerregtebeweging (994). Op die ondersteuning van linkse blankes kon die Amerikaanse swartes altyd reken. In Suid-Afrika het die swartes ook nie alleen hulle “bevrydingstryd” gestry nie. In deurslaggewende opsigte het Jode, ander blankes, insluitende verloopte Afrikaners, asook Indiërs, vir ANC-swartes die weg aangedui en hulle in ander opsigte gehelp. Let op Hannah-Jones se uiters radikale siening van slawerny: “Enslaved people were not recognized as human beings but as property that could be mortgaged, traded, bought, sold, used as collateral, given as a gift and disposed of violently” (1031).

Wat Wood nuut oor [1] sê, is dat ‘n swart historikus, Leslie M Harris, bekend gemaak het dat sy voor die publikasie van die 1619-projek deur die Times genader is oor die vraag of die onafhanklikheidsoorlog gevoer is om die voortsetting van slawerny te verseker. Sy het dit as ‘n feitefout uitgewys maar haar mening is geïgnoreer (1073). Wat gepubliseer is, is soos volg deur Hannah-Jones geformuleer: “We may never have revolted against Britain if the founders had not understood that slavery empowered them to do so; nor if they had not believed that independence was required in order to ensure that slavery would continue” (1142).

In werklikheid was die Britte in daardie stadium (18de eeu) nog nie “deeply conflicted” oor slawerny soos Hannah-Jones beweer nie. “They were complacent” (1164). “Britain had no interest in ending slavery in the colonies … No country in the world surpassed Great Britain in the eighteenth century in supplying the Americas with slaves” (1168). Dit was eerder in Amerika as in Brittanje wat daar toe reeds teenkanting teen slawerny was. “The Revolution unleased antislavery sentiments that led to the first abolition movements in the history of the world” (1207). In Virginia was die mening dat hulle “already had more slaves than they needed” (1348). ‘n Britse verbod op slawehandel sou boerdery nie ontwrig nie. Die mening van vyf en later nog twaalf historici (1404) kan soos volg saamgevat word: “Hannah-Jones’s ideological zeal outran her fidelity to the truth” (1415).

Wat [2] hier bo betref, herhaal Wood grootliks die kritiek wat Magness op Desmond se uitlatings gelewer het. Wood noem Magness “Desmond’s most trenchant critic” (1868). Sterk kritiek is ook deur ander kenners gelewer. “For [Leslie] Harris, Southern slavery impoverished the surrounding society; for [Robert] Paquette, slavery retarded economic development. Neither scholar accepts the idea that the antebellum economy centered on slavery as a form of capitalism” (1898). “This critique of slavery as economically ruinous comes up over and over again among the scholars who have peered into the NHC [New History of Capitalism] writings” (1918). Die NHC-kritici het bevind “that exports constituted a small share of American GDP (typically less than 10 percent) and that the total value of cotton was therefore small by comparison with the overall American economy (less than 5 percent, lower than the value of corn)” (1934).

Volgens [3] hier bo is die essensie van Amerika se geskiedenis die swartes se stryd teen blanke heerssugtigheid. Hannah-Jones geniet dit blykbaar om die geskiedenis volgens haar wense te plooi. Kritiek op haar standpunt is reeds in ruime mate in my vorige en hierdie rubriek uitgespreek. Sy noem plantasies nie plantasies nie maar eerder “forced-labor camps” (2146, 2943). Sy het later erken “that seeking reparations was her true purpose” (2439): “My ultimate goal is that there will be a reparations bill passed” (2442). “Such reparations, she says, are not just for slavery but for the one hundred years after slavery [that is, until the successful civil rights movement in the 1960s], and they will have to consist of cash payments to every black American who has a slave ancestor. Their purpose will not be to erase racism, bring about racial harmony, or fully pay what whites owe blacks; they will simply be a form of ‘restitution’ for what has been wrongfully taken away from blacks” (2442).

Dus: “She freely admits that such payments will do nothing to improve race relations and won’t expunge any moral debt. They are simply ‘what is owed’. There is no gratitude to be found in the 1619 Project, only bitterness and anger” (2454). Groter vermetelheid is kwalik moontlik. Wood skryf sagkens van “lack of intellectual modesty” (2955), maar is andersins uitgesproke: “Our history is being disassembled, falsified, and woven into a new fabric in the name of some sort of compensatory justice” (2524). “The Times, a news organization, … assigned journalists rather than historians to write history (2931). “The 1619 Project is … not legitimate journalism, and it isn’t legitimate history either. It is mainly an assemblage of poorly sourced assertions – an extended opinion piece” (2608). “The 1619 Project is, arguably, part of a larger effort to destroy America by people who find our nation unbearably bad” (3149). Allen Guelzo skryf: “The 1619 Project is not history; it is ignorance” (2291).

Wat [4] hier bo betref, probeer Wood om Abraham Lincoln in die gebruiklike “goeie” hedendaagse polities “korrekte” lig te stel. Phillip Magness het my oortuig dat Lincoln geensins die toets van polities byderwetsheid kan slaag nie (Praag 17.10.2020). Vir my is die teleurstellendste aspek van Wood se boek dat hy in hierdie konteks glad nie na Magness se standpunt verwys nie, terwyl hy wel op uitgebreide skaal oor Magness se fundamentele kritiek op Desmond berig. Dit is duidelik dat Wood ‘n Noorderling is wat kant teen die Suide kies. Daarom het hy simpatie met die vertolking dat dit in die Burgeroorlog om die vrystelling van die slawe gegaan het. Byvoorbeeld, een van Wood se besware is: “If these students had studied the 1619 Project they would have learned that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War” (2856). Wood oordryf ook heel moontlik die mate waarin Amerikaners van vroeg af teen slawerny gekant was. Die Suiderlinge en hulle ondersteuners, daarenteen, dink dat Lincoln die onverkwiklike Burgeroorlog aangepak het omdat hy ten alle koste die eenheid van die Unie wou bewaar. Lincoln het immers in 1862 geskryf: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery” (2214).

“The 1619 Project aims to transform American education, if not all of American society” (2943). Ek kom nou by moontlik die ernstigste gevolg wat die 1619-projek inhou, naamlik die toepassing daarvan in skole. Die kurrikulum van die 1619-projek word gekarakteriseer as: “slavery-is-the-foundation-of-everything-in-this-vile-white-supremacist-society” (3102). “The Pulitzer Center has taken the lead in getting the 1619 Project curriculum into schools, which appears to be the primary goal of the whole project” (1509), dus “turning the 1619 Project from a journalistic stunt into an educational reality” (1567). In skole is die leermateriaal glo geskik vir gebruik in al die grade (2915) en dus vir kinders van alle ouderdomme (3014).

“The Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting was founded in 2006 … Sometime later, it made ‘educational outreach’ part of its ‘core mision’. The outreach it had in mind was teaching aspiring journalists to see themselves as ‘engaged global citizens'” (1570) – soortgelyk aan Wim de Villiers se ideaal vir studente aan die nuwe Stellenbosch University. Wêreldburgerskap “signals disenchantment with the idea of the nationstate and with ‘citizenship’ as usually understood. Global citizens are, at least by disposition, loyal to no particular place, people, culture, or government. They are ‘postnational’ and see themselves as operating on a plane above the parochial attachments of ordinary people. Global citizenship is a self-conferred elite status” (1574). In De Villiers se geval is hy nie soseer teen burgerskap van die nuwe Suid-Afrika én Afrika gekant nie. Sy gramskap is teen burgerskap van blank Suid-Afrika en veral etnies-nasionalistiese gehegtheid aan die Afrikanerdom en Afrikaans.

‘n Belangrike deurbraak vir die 1619-projek was toe die National Education Association (NEA), die grootste onderwysersvakbond met meeras drie miljoen lede, sy steun toegesê het (1509); glo “to help give us a deeper understanding of systemic racism and its impact” (1512). Het u al ooit die ware stelling teëgekom dat die nuwe Suid-Afrika, soos dikwels oor die oue beweer is, onder sistemiese rassisme gebuk gaan? Die 1619-projek in skole vind aansluiting by die Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC – Praag 19.09.2020) se “Teaching Tolerance”-projek, asook Black Lives Matter at Schools (1512); ook die “Zinn Education Project, named for the late Howard Zinn [1922-2010], a radical Marxist historian best known for his book A people’s history of the United States” (1980, Kindle $6,12). Zinn se boek is deur Mary Grabar aan die kaak gestel: Debunking Howard Zinn: Exposing the fake history that turned a generation against America (2019, Kindle $14,94). Daar is ook Rethinking Schools en Teaching for Change “that aims to build ‘social justice starting in the classroom'” (1524). Hulle is almal pogings om ‘n beweerde fout in die Amerikaanse skoolstelsel reg te stel, naamlik “Slavery is not well taught” (1616).

Vir die Pulitzer Center gaan dit om “a reframing of this essential part of our national identity” (1616). Wood skryf: “With these groups, we are in the cultural Marxist, radical anti-American end of the pool, where the goal is to indoctrinate American children with a hatred of their country. A substantial portion of that indoctrination is the effort to instill racial animosity and the conviction among African Americans that they are now and have always been the victims of systemic racial oppression” (1551). Die titel van ‘n lesing wat Hannah-Jones vir gebruik in skole geskryf het, is: “Exploring the idea of America” (1602). Daarin staan: “The 1619 Project … challenges us to reframe US history by making the year when the first enslaved Africans arrived on Virginia soil as its foundational date” (2919). “Hannah-Jones provides an expansive essay on why ‘black Americans … are this nation’s true ‘founding fathers”‘ (2923). Wood skryf: “Tens of thousands of schoolteachers will parrot her nonsense, and millions of American schoolchildren will read and hear it from voices that ring with authority” (2308).

In 2019 het die Pulitzer Center daarop aanspraak gemaak dat sy studiemateriaal vir die 1619-projek reeds in 3 500 klaskamers is (2571) en ter beskikking van “tens of thousands of students in all 50 states” (2578). Wood: Vóór 2019 “few schools … have been teaching that America was a ‘slavocracy’; that slavery is our founding institution; and that every salient characteristic of America today is the result of slavery” (2618). Dit is Hannah-Jones wat geskryf het: “This nation was founded not as a democracy but as a slavocracy” (2938). “A new narrative of America as an oppressive state that exploited minorities and privileged a class of white supremacists could not be merged seamlessly with the old narrative” (2838). “The 1619 Project carries the reaction into the realm of radical overreaction” (2845).

“In January 2018, the SPLC released ‘Teaching hard history: American slavery’, a report that is part of its Teaching Tolerance program. The webpage presenting the report proclaims: ‘Schools are not adequately teaching the history of American slavery, educators are not sufficiently prepared to teach it, textbooks do not have enough material about it, and – as a result – students lack a basic knowledge of the important role it played in shaping the United States and the impact it continues to have on race relations in America” (1636). “The Family Research Council, which is a harsh critic of the SPLC … noted that the SPLC had been way ahead of the 1619 Project” (1645).

As teenvoeter vir die 1619-projek, het ‘n swart Amerikaner, Robert Woodson, in Februarie 2020 ‘n projek geloods “that … has come to be known simply as ‘1776’, or ‘1776 Unites'” (3018). “Woodson hit on the better name for an endeavor to remind Americans that our nation was founded on the pursuit of freedom, not on slavery and racism” (3022). Wood se samevatting ter afsluiting is: “The 1619 Project as a whole is myth-making aimed at intensifying identity politics and group grievance. It doesn’t aim, as it says, to tell ‘our story truthfully’. It aims to tell it with falsehoods and deceptions for the purpose of instilling resentment” (3087). Oor die toepassing: “The 1619 Project … consists of an effort to destroy America by teaching children that America never really existed, except as a lie told by white people in an effort to control black people” (3152).

Die Times beoog om onbepaald met hierdie projek voort te gaan (3156). Die redes hiervoor is: [1] “the appeasement of angry and aggressive members of the Times’ staff” (3156); [2] “the social-justice agenda of the Times management” (3159); [3] “the hope of energizing the Democratic electorate to oppose Trump in the 2020 election” (3159); [4] “the failure of the Mueller investigation to deliver the results that the Times eagerly anticipated” (3159); [5] “the desire to push government to pay reparations to blacks for slavery” (3163); [6] “postnationalism, that is, the idea that America is not exceptional and really shouldn’t exist at all, to which end borders should be abolished” (3163); [7] “the elevation of identity politics based on racial grievance to become the dominant or perhaps exclusive cultural construct bearing on the nation’s politics, economics, and morality” (3166).

In Julie 2020 Hannah-Jones in “a series of tweets … asserts that the 1619 Project was never intended to be ‘history'” (3193): “I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative, and, therefore, the national memory. The project has always been as much about the present as it is the past … The 1619 Project is using history and reporting to make an argument. It never pretended to be a history” (3196). Wood skryf: “My guess is that she is doing a victory lap. At this point the popular success of the 1619 Project is so well established that she no longer needs to claim historical accuracy. She has moved on to something bigger: a narrative that is indeed reframing the whole idea of the American past. A false narrative that people believe is usually called a myth” (3211). “As I write this, Arkansas senator Tom Cotton has proposed legislation that would prohibit federal money from going to schools that teach the 1619 Project” (3225).

Leon Lemmer: Die stryd om die behoud van Westerse beskawing

In Brittanje en veral Amerika het dit by skool- en universitêre onderrig mode geword om die eie kultuur af te kraak, die eie geskiedenis te verwaarloos en hulle met multikulturaliteit en wêreldgeskiedenis te vervang. Donald Trump gooi wal hierteen en tref maatreëls om die instroming te keer van vreemdelinge wat kultureel radikaal van tradisionele Amerikaners verskil. Soos Trump stel Boris Johnson Britse belange eerste en wakker hy nasionalisme aan, hoewel hy nie sterk standpunt teen immigrasie inneem nie.

Volgens die Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal (HAT, 2015) is kultuur “die manier van leef, gewoontes, geloof, ens, van ‘n bepaalde groep mense of gemeenskap; geesteslewe.” Beskawing is “geestelike ontwikkeling; verfyning.” In die Collins World Encyclopedia (2003) word culture beskryf as “the way of life of a particular society or group of people, including patterns of thought, beliefs, behaviour, customs, traditions, rituals, dress, and language, as well as art, music, and literature.” Civilization is ‘n “highly developed human society.” Kultuur verwys dus na mense se leefwyse, hulle manier van dink en gevolglik van doen, terwyl beskawing verfynde of ontwikkelde kultuur is. Alle mense beskik dus oor kultuur maar net sommige mense het hulle denke en gedrag dermate verbeter dat daardie verhoogde vlak as beskawing gekarakteriseer word.

Veralgemenend kan groepe mense, bv gemeenskappe, samelewings en nasies, as beskaaf beskou word terwyl dit nie van ander groepe, hetsy histories of hedendaags, gesê behoort te word nie. Die verskil tussen beskaafde en onbeskaafde kultuur is dus hiërargies. Sodanige hiërargieë kan oor tyd verander. Die skeidslyn tussen beskaaf en onbeskaaf kan nie altyd duidelik getrek word nie omdat daar ‘n verskil kan wees in die waardes wat tydens beoordeling gebruik word. In die praktyk is dit egter dikwels moontlik om tussen onbetwisbaar beskaafde en onmiskenbaar onbeskaafde gedrag te onderskei. Tydens kolonialisme was dit (meesal/dikwels) die geval dat die koloniste van die veronderstelling uitgegaan het dat hulle, in vergelyking met die inheemse bevolking, beskaaf was. Die koloniste was gevolglik geneig om op die kultuur van die gekoloniseerdes neer te sien.

Aan die Kaap was die vroegste blanke inwoners nie uit die Europese elite afkomstig nie, hoewel gesofistikeerde kultuur plaaslik ‘n hupstoot met die koms van die Hugenote teen die einde van die 17de eeu (1688-1700) gekry het. In vergelyking met die inheemse bevolking, die Khoi-San, was hierdie vroeë blankes meer beskaaf. Hulle kon bv huise bou en akkerbou bedryf; nie net veeteelt nie. Toe die Britte hier aankom (1795, 1806), het hulle hulleself as meerderwaardig, as meer beskaaf, as die plaaslike Hollanders beskou. Tydens kolonialisme was die algemeen aanvaarde standpunt dat die Europese koloniale moondhede beskawing na die kolonies gebring het. Dit is ‘n geldige siening maar een wat weens politieke byderwetsheid deesdae selde geopper word.

In Amerika is daar die National Association of Scholars (NAS), met as missie “to sustain the tradition of reasoned scholarship and civil debate in American colleges and universities” (Stanley Kurtz, bron hier onder, Kindle 11), wat insluit ‘n verbintenis met “academic freedom and excellence” (25). Die polities linkse Wikipedia beskryf die NAS as “an American non-profit politically conservative advocacy group, with a particular interest in education. It opposes a perceived [!] political correctness on college campuses and supports a return to mid-20th century curricular and scholarship norms, and an increase in conservative representation in faculty.” Die NAS gooi wal teen die buitensporig linkse aard van Amerikaanse tersiêre onderrig, wat voortspruit uit die radikaal linkse politiek van die oorgrote meerderheid dosente, veral in die humaniora en sosiale wetenskappe.

Van ‘n senior NAS-genoot, Stanley Kurtz, is die volgende boek gepubliseer: The lost history of Western civilization (New York: NAS, 2020, 176p; Amazon Kindle $6,89). Die onderwerp van die boek is die kultuuroorlog wat by uitstek op Amerikaanse universiteitskampusse woed. Hierdie oorlog het in 1987, die jaar waarin die NAS gestig is, by Stanford University begin (36). Stanford, Jonathan Jansen se alma mater, ding met die University of California, Berkekey, mee om die ekstreem linkste Amerikaanse universiteit te wees. Waartoe Stanford gesink het, blyk uit die volgende: “Close to forty percent of Stanford’s undergraduate student body consisted of minority students” (1863). Minderheidstatus, pleks van akademiese prestasie, dikteer studente-toelating. “Most minorities on campus are there primarily because of preferences” (2317). “The more victim classes you belong to, the higher you rank” (1640). “If black students perform poorly, it is merely because they’ve been forced to imitate white culture and conform to its standards” (2445). Plaaslik is selfs al beweer dat standaarde en meriete verwerplike Westerse uitvindings is.

Die kultuuroorlog is ‘n stryd tussen “the new multicultural way and the traditional American conceptions of history and citizenship” (40). Kurtz redeneer: “The Western tradition is the source of America’s founding principles and constitutional system” (51). Wat die vyande van tradisionele Amerikaanse waardes doen, is om die Amerikaanse geskiedenis te dekonstueer en te herskryf, “a version of history that aims to debunk and overthrow the foundational narratives of America and the wider West” (142). Die ANC-regime is besig om met die hartlike samewerking van sommige historici ons geskiedenis volgens die wense van die ANC te herskryf. Die doel is om die aansien van die blankes, veral die Afrikaners, te ondermyn. “A civilization attains the ability to judge and guide itself by means of its history” (148). Daarom vind die ANC-regime dit noodsaaklik om Afrikanergeskiedenis te verwring tot iets wat verguis moet word.

Die aanleiding tot die 1987-gebeure was die historikus, Gilbert Allardyce, se valse bewering in 1982 “that the very idea of Western civilization is a modern invention devised during World War I as a way of hoodwinking young American soldiers into fighting and dying in the trenches of Europe” (56). In werklikheid “American colleges and universities have been teaching Western Civilization since before the Revolution” (War of American Independence, 1775-1783). Harvard, gestig in 1636, is die oudste Amerikaanse universiteit. “Required study of Western Civilization extends back to the colonial period, antedating the invention of the word ‘civilization'” (1105).

“In the decades since the Stanford dustup, the Allardyce thesis has been invoked to justify the replacement of college [undergraduate university] and K-12 [primary and secondary school] Western Civilization courses with World History, or with heavily globalized versions of European and American history” (62). Stanford se verpligte kursus in Western Culture is as gevolg van Allardyce se bewering in 1988 afgeskaf (67, 1006). Onlangs is pogings aanwend om die plek wat ‘n kursus in Westerse beskawing eens ingeneem het met ‘n verpligte kursus in “civic education and global citizenship” te vervang (83). “Civic education is the anodyne camouflage behind which modern universities often introduce coursework in progressive political activism” (94).

Aan Stellenbosch University (SU) is Wim de Villiers, met sy Amerikaanse akademiese agtergrond maar beperkte ideologiese insig, ‘n voorstander van Afrika- en wêreldburgerskap. Hy is myns insiens nie gebore in staat om die volgende vraag sinvol-beredeneerd te beantwoord nie: “Can there be a transnational national culture?” (1578). Kurtz se antwoord is: “A transnational national culture means the end of nation and culture as we know them and the start of a clash based on race instead” (2698). “The global level is simply a back-door way of undermining national narratives” (1722). De Villiers se uitgesproke diversiteitsmanie is pro-multikulturaliteit, dus “whatever works to the benefit of its advocates” (1608).

Die hoogste goed, die grootste prestasie, waartoe SU tans in staat is, is die brutale vernietiging van ‘n eens akademies voortreflike Afrikaans- en Afrikaneruniversiteit. Die Universiteit Stellenbosch het twee rektore gehad wat al die ander in die skadu stel. Die De Villiers-SU kon dit nie verduur dat die name van hierdie twee voortreflike Afrikaners op die kampus voortleef nie. Die HB Thom-teater is reeds na Adam Small hernoem. Tans word voorstelle ingewag vir die verandering van die naam van die RW Wilcocks-gebou. Die vernoeming van ‘n universiteitskoshuis na Russel Botman, ‘n ANC-aktivis, is egter in orde. Onder De Villiers se leiding het SU die era betree waarin (ten minste vergelykenderwys) eerder mikro- en nanogeeste verheerlik word. Verdere onverkwiklike nuus is dat Johannesburg University, voorheen die Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, ná vanjaar selfs nie meer ‘n Afrikaansdepartement gaan hê nie.

Die voorbeeld wat Stanford gestel het, word by talle ander universiteite nagevolg. Dit is deel van die kultuuroorlog wat woed. “American politics today has become Stanford’s culture war writ large” (1387). “Through the 1950s, Western Civ was the most popular course at Stanford. By 1963-66 … Stanford’s senior faculty had lost faith in the very idea of general education” (1392), bv verpligte kernleerplanne. Vryheid van vakkeuse is sedertdien aan die orde van die dag (1398). In die plek van Westerse beskawing is kursusse in multikulturalisme ingestel. Multikulturalisme se jongste inkarnasie word “intersectionality” genoem (72). “The intersectional alliance … downplay[s] culture and accentuate race. Race becomes the sign of shared oppression and essentially replaces culture at the core of modern intersectional identity” (2273).

Maar dit gaan om meer as net ras. Interseksionaliteit omvat al die polities byderwetse idees oor ras, klas, geslag, seksuele oriëntasie, ens, terwyl tradisionele opvattings hieroor as diskriminasie en bevoorregting veroordeel word. Die grondslag hiervan is onmiskenbaar nieu-marxisties. Die nuwe marxisme verskil van die klassieke marxisme van bv Karel Marx en Friedrich Engels deurdat dit nie meer gaan om die politieke of staatkundige verowering van die hele wêreld nie, maar die ondermyning van veral Westerse kultuur en beskawing. Soms vind hierdie motiewe skuiling onder “the secular political religion of modernity” (108) of “post-modernity” – skynbaar voorbeeldige maar vae terme vir verskynsels wat misbruik word om (alles) wat tradisioneel en behoudend is, af te breek.

“Multiculturalism has ushered in a radically new sort of culture in which perpetually expanding accusations of racism, bigotry and genocide stand as quasi-religious ends in themselves … The American experiment cannot survive without checking or reversing these trends” (83). Onderliggend aan multikulturalisme is daar die sug na globalisme (119). Hier moet ‘n belangrike onderskeid gemaak word. Globalisering is ‘n (positiewe) hedendaagse verskynsel, bv die gemak waarmee wêreldwyd gereis, handel gedryf en inligting uitgeruil word. Globalisme, daarenteen, is ‘n ideologie waarmee gepoog word om ras- en kultuurverskille op te hef, nasionalisme en nasiestate te vernietig en alle mense (sover moontlik) identiteitloos eenderse wêreldburgers te maak. Kurtz verwys na “the allure for academics of ideas like ‘invented traditions’ and ‘imagined communities’, conceptual tools designed to subvert and dissolve the apparent reality of nations, cultures and civilizations” (125).

Die destydse Stanford-kursus in Westerse beskawing het die bestudering van grootse Westerse literêre werke ingesluit (119); daardie klassieke boeke wat deesdae in byderwetse politiek as die werk van dooie, blanke mans afgemaak word. “Advocates for dropping the requirement argued that the very idea of Western culture – and perhaps by implication Western Civilization itself – was largely an illusion” (137). Dit geld glo ook vir kultureel eiesoortige nasies (142). Sedert 1994 word op ‘n soortgelyke manier plaaslik dikwels voorgegee dat die Afrikanerdom en selfs Afrikaans – as ‘n eiesoortige taal wat duidelik van Engels onderskeibaar is – nie bestaan of behoort te bestaan nie. Afrikanernasionalisme word sonder meer as ongewens verdoem terwyl dit in werklikheid verseker het dat Afrikaners en Afrikaans voortreflike hoogtes kon bereik.

“To reclaim the lost history of America’s Western Civilization courses is to recover an understanding of who we are and what we have become” (148). Kursusse in Westerse en Amerikaanse geskiedenis het die nuttige doel gedien om die blanke immigrante wat voor die Tweede Wêreldoorlog hulle opwagting gemaak het, te assimileer (1423). Sedertdien het dit in die era van massa-immigrasie van nie-Westerse elemente ontaard, wat nie (maklik) geassimileer kan of wil word nie en wat weerstand bied teen onderrig in ‘n kultuur en beskawing wat vir hulle vreemd is (1441). Aan Stanford was daar “growing attacks on the requirement by black, female, Hispanic and Asian students” (1434).

Wat met multikulturalisme en globalisme beoog word, “is to undermine the public’s sense of national or civilizational identity” (153) terwyl daar terselfdertyd nie daarin geslaag kon word om groter belangstelling in die studie van die humaniora te wek nie (1447). “For deconstructionist historians, the only sound and fully legitimate identity is a global identity” (164). “We used to believe that individual liberty, religious freedom, liberal democracy, free markets, constitutionalism, scientific rationality, and the rule of law were significant enough to justify a focus on the traditions that created them” (170). “The very idea of American exceptionalism makes no sense without the complementary idea of Western civilization” (213). Amerikaanse eiesoortigheid sluit dus nie verwantskap met Europese beskawing uit nie. Inteendeel, dit is ‘n verlenging en verdere ontwikkeling daarvan. Verder: “How could modern Europe have recognized itself as a particular civilization in comparison to others had there not been something distinctive about it … – manners, customs, and institutions slowly shaped by the classical and Christian heritage of previous centuries?” (255).

“If anyone could be said to have ‘invented’ not Europe itself, but the emerging modern conception of European civilization, it was Charles Louis de Secondat, baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu [1689-1755], who did it 170 years before the First World War,” naamlik in 1748 (260). Hy het Europa met Asië gekontrasteer en bevind “Europe [is] a cultural and political entity with a history of its own” (267). Anders as ander kontinente vorm Europa en Asië ‘n aaneengeslote landmassa, maar die kulturele onderskeid tussen die twee gebiede word tot op hede algemeen erken. Dit geld bv vir vryheid. “While [Montesquieu] saw the West as far from immune to despotism, it was the locale in which liberty had made its foremost appearance” (284). Dit het bygedra tot die volgende latere standpunt: “The history of Europe is a history of liberty – the continent’s unique civilizational marker” (367).

Dit is vir my altyd interessant om veral in die Amerikaanse literatuur op te let hoe die woorde liberty en freedom gebruik word; liberty meesal in staatkundige verband. “Liberty” is vir die Amerikaners ‘n waardige, gekoesterde soort vryheid; nie die padversper-, klipgooi-tipe vryheid nie. “Liberty entails the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law without depriving anyone else of their freedom. Freedom is more broad in that it represents a total lack of restraint or the unrestrained ability to fulfil one’s desires” (Internet).

“England for Montesquieu played the ‘exceptional’ role that America (or the Anglo-American tradition) took on in later narratives of Western Civilization” (273). “Although Montesquieu was the first thinker to systematically characterize ‘Europe’, the word ‘civilization’ hadn’t yet been coined in 1748. ‘Spirit’ came close, since Montesquieu used it to summarize the totality of factors that shaped the laws of a given world-region. Montesquieu may be indirectly responsible for ‘civilization’, though; it was a French disciple of his [Victor de Riqueti, 1715-1789] who first coined the term in 1757, after which it swiftly became popular” (284). As vrugte van beskawing word “safety, abundance, liberty, and democracy” genoem (297). Naas vryheid word die christelike religie as die onderskeidende kenmerk van die Weste beskou (486). Gesamentlik het hulle bygedra tot die idee dat die Westerse beskawing meerderwaardig is (511). Daar word gemeen “that America had developed and perfected the career of liberty to an unprecedented degree” (630).

Adam Ferguson se 1767-boek, Essay on the history of civil society, is “the first known English-language publication to use the word ‘civilization'” (315). “Ferguson saw every human society passing through stages from ‘savage’ to ‘barbarous’ to ‘polished'” (321). Eersgenoemde twee beskik oor kultuur maar slegs laasgenoemde kan op beskaafdheid aanspraak maak. In 1769 het William Roberson ‘n biografie oor Karel V (1500-1558), die keiser van die Heilige Romeinse Ryk, gepubliseer. “It was Robertson’s lengthy introduction to that work that gained fame as the first great narrative account of the development of European civilization” (335). “Robertson persistently ranked the pursuit of liberty and the desire for justice as independent historical forces. For Robertson, the quest for ‘the unalienable rights of humanity’ was both an ethical choice and a driver of Europe’s story” (373). “The idea of civilization implies restraint in war, and lays down a standard of justice by which conflicts can be judged and condemned” (807). In bv die Anglo-Boereoorlog het die Britte hierdie beskawingstoets skouspelagtig gedruip.

“For Robertson, the moral choice most essential to the survival of a free and civilized Europe was the decision to foreswear the pursuit of universal empire. Robertson’s History of the reign of the emperor Charles V taught the dangers of the quest for continental hegemony” (379). “The essence of civilized Europe, for Robertson, was its balance of power” (385). “Europe had become a kind of informal confederacy of nations – a civilization bound by a shared system of manners … Only the pursuit of total continental (and world) domination could disrupt the system” (391).

“The [American] colonists absorbed these histories on the understanding that America was the last great outpost of British freedom and virtue at a time when the mother country itself was beset by luxury and corruption. America came to see themselves as torchbearers of British liberty, perhaps even capable of inspiring a renewal of freedom and virtue in Britain itself. Once again, American exceptionalism took shape against the background of a shared European civilization story” (348). “Robertson, Montesquieu, and Ferguson, the key early accounts of Western Civilization, all held an important place in Harvard’s late-18th century curriculum” (397).

Oor ‘n invloedryke Harvard-dosent, Charles Eliot Norton (1827-1908), is (oordrewe – 772) beweer: “[He] effectively ‘invented’ the idea of Western civilization in the 1890s” (767). Hy het egter bloot op ‘n voorbeeldige manier historiese oorsigte van Westerse kunsgeskiedenis, insluitende die bestudering van die “Great Books” (767), in leerplanne neerslag laat vind (772). Die oorsprong van die tradisionele en soms luidrugtige Amerikaanse teenkanting teen kolonialisme kan, afgesien van sy eie onafhanklikheidsoorlog (1775-1783), sekerlik ook na Robertson se boek teruggevoer word. Maar daar is heelwat valsheid en skynheiligheid in die agtereenvolgende hedendaagse Amerikaanse regerings se bewerings dat hulle anti-kolonialisties is. Verwys bv na die uitstekende boek van Daniel Immerwahr, How to hide an empire: A history of the greater United States (2019, Kindle $14,94).

Aansluitend by Allardyce is verwys na “the dangers of a resurgent barbarism in Europe of which the savagery of the First World War was taken as a prime example” (948). “[But] World War I may indeed have helped stimulate renewed interest in the survival of Western civilization. And that broader preoccupation with the fate of the West between the two world wars may have helped promote the idea of a required general education course in Western history” (954). “Broadly speaking, whether we call it ‘Western civilization’, ‘European civilization’, or even, as often in the 18th and 19th centuries, merely ‘civilization’ (under the assumption that European society was at the leading edge of general human progess), the basic cultural and historical referent for purposes of college teaching and otherwise was essentially the same” (972).

“The new globalist history has degenerated into a one-sided game whose implicit goal is to debunk the notion that Western culture exists at all. Every European borrowing of a new foodstuff, each trans-Atlantic disease transmission, or any artistic inspiration drawn from another continent is taken as proof of a culturally borderless world” (1052). Westerse kultuur en beskawing word ingevolge nieu-marxistiese gelyk- en eendersverklaring dood- en weggewens, des te meer omdat geen kultuur of beskawing glo beter (bv meer gevorderd, meer welvarend) as ‘n ander mag wees of as sodanig voorgestel word nie. Dit is nie-presteerders wat ‘n afkeer van hiërargieë het. Die voorstanders van Westerse beskawing, daarenteen, “rightly believed that they were describing a continuous tradition to which they and their students were deeply indebted” (1487).

Michel Foucault (1926-1984) het geredeneer dat kennis en subjektiwiteit deur sosiale instellings en gebruike beïnvloed word en met verloop van tyd verander. Hy het gepoog om konvensionele opvattings sover moontlik te ondermyn. In die konteks van Kurtz se onderwerp is Foucault se idees op ‘n bepaalde manier vertolk. “There is only talk about ‘civilization’ that serves as a tool for suppressing the purportedly less civilized. From this perspective, history itself is the continuous invention of ‘knowledge’ in the service of dominant groups” (1470). “Everything is bent toward resisting the current ‘regime of truth’ on behalf of groups disadvantaged by the dominant powers” (1476). In die Weste gaan dit dus om die diskreditering en ondergrawing van blanke heerskappy. “If it’s ancient or admirable, it must be a myth; if it challenges hallowed traditions, it must be true” (1550).

Die bestudering van die grootse literêre werke wat die Westerse beskawing opgelewer het, “the Great Books,” het tradisioneel ‘n belangrike rol in Amerikaanse tersiêre onderrig gespeel. “To introduce these students collectively to the great books of the West is a way of making them powerful: of allowing them to know who they are, so that they may more effectively choose who to be” (1509), “[ie] permitting them to recognize their kinship with, and indebtedness to, predecessors who made them what they are” (1514). Maar aan Stanford was daar bv iemand soos Herbert Lindenberger wat daarop uit was “to desacralize the course [in Western Civilization]” (1531). “We should think of history as ‘the process by which we “construct” whatever pasts we deem serviceable'” (1537) – soos die ANC-regime tans met sy herskrywing van die Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis doen.

In die laaste afdeling in sy boek vestig Kurtz die aandag op die buitensporige uiterstes waartoe die teenstanders van Westerse beskawing en ‘n eie Amerikaanse kultuur hulle wend. “The very act of naming and defining a common American culture is racist, insofar as it tramples on ‘multis’ who resist assimilation and demand identities of their own. Lauding an allegedly common American culture as ‘great’ compounds the offense, especially in light of slavery and other abuses of the past” (1836). “Almost anything is potential fodder for a racism claim” (2014). “The upshot appears to be that the West is evil; and besides, it doesn’t exist” (1847). Plaaslik is ons situasie soortgelyk: Die blankes, veral die Afrikanerdom, word sonder meer as boos getakseer. By bevoordeling handel die ANC-regime asof blankes nie bestaan nie. Die bestaan van blankes kom slegs in die prentjie as ‘n sondebok vir die ANC-regime se onbekwaamheid gesoek word en as besittings vir hertoedeling aan swartes gevind moet word.

Plaaslik is amptelike sensuur en in Amerika en Suid-Afrika selfsensuur aan die orde van die dag. “Pointing to problems in other people’s cultures (or subcultures) is impermissible. Now the corollary was drawn: it is forbidden even to laud one’s own culture, lest that imply derogation of others” (1918). ‘n Oorverligte dosent aan die Universiteit Kaapstad mag nie die resultate van ‘n eerlike ondersoek publiseer oor waarom swart studente nie vir biologiestudie registreer nie. Een van die redes is dat daar ander beroepe is wat meer lonend is. In die geval van swartes mag dit nie gesê word nie, want dit reflekteer minder gunstig op hulle; dit impliseer dat swartes materialisties is. Moet daar eerder uitgaan word van die veronderstelling dat swartes oorloop van ubuntu, van mededeelsaamheid, en dat dit duidelik blyk uit die feit dat Suid-Afrika sedert 1994 dié toonbeeld van ‘n korrupsievrye samelewing geword het?

“[The] reasoning [above] short-circuits America’s ability to recognize, affirm, and transmit its core values. Culture itself becomes impossible. The very idea of a commonly held tradition is stigmatized as ‘racist'” (1924). “It can fairly be said that generating charges of systematic, unconscious, and implicit racism (and associated other isms and phobias) is today a central preoccupation of America’s universities and increasingly a cultural dividing line in society at large” (1976). “Accusations of racism are becoming the new American culture” (2687). “Mere talk of different cultures – and certainly, of ‘civilizations’ – is in itself evidence of guilty ‘Othering'” (1987). “Charging non-minorities with complicity in that historical oppression is the new key to power. In a sense, it is the basis of a new kind of American culture” (2009).

Dink aan die Protea-krieketspelers en -beamptes wat onlangs gekniel en met die Mandela-saluut vuis in die lug hulle ondersteuning aan Black Lives Matter (BLM) betuig het. Dit was in reaksie op die dood van ‘n swart misdadiger en die gevolglike verdere aftakeling van wet en orde in Amerika. Hou in gedagte dat hierdie Suid-Afrikaners eerder iets van krieket as van ideologie, propaganda en politiek verstaan. Die blanke krieketspelers en -beamptes het hulle sodanig gedra om hulle solidariteit met hulle swart kollegas te betuig omdat die swartes, daarenteen, nie van hulle BLM-dogmatisme sou afsien nie. Dit is soortgelyk aan die druk waaraan die blanke politici in 1990/94 tydens die grondwetlike onderhandelinge toegegee het. Daar word geredeneer: Gee liewer toe anders is daar tot in die oneindige ‘n chaotiese gemors. Maar iedere toegewing aan blanke kant lei tot hernude eise en in elk geval tot voortgesette chaos.