From the Acknowledgments Page of prominent UCT Fallist Mlandu Masixole’s honours dissertation in politics, as Tweeted out to his followers:
“One day the misery we feel under the settler palm shall be return upon them…. [L]et me thank the Pan Africanist student movement in occupied Azania. Your fight for the total emancipation of Black people will never be forgotten. Izwe Lethu, I Africa! ONE SETTLER, ONE BULLET!!”
Mlandu on Twitter the following day, emphasising his point:
“One settler, One bullet. Each bullet will take us closer to freedom.”
And in response to a query asking him to clarify what he meant, after the Tweet had been taken down:
“I didn't delete it some white clown reported me. Well the message is clear, even a blind person can see.”
Wits Fallist Mcebo Dlamini on the controversy, in an opinion piece on News24:
“The Mlandu incident perhaps, if read closely, reveals to us whose libidinal economy matters in this country; whose feelings of pain and pleasure matter. It is surely that of white people if a mere statement can cause so much outrage that an entire university distances itself from it.
What is shocking though is that we have never seen the same outrage from the white community when black people die in the townships, when they live inhumane lives in the squatter camps while white people enjoy hectares of land.
It is this privilege and power that white people are enjoying that make them think that they are superior to black people and therefore their desires and feelings should become a priority. It is us who have to undo this, it is the voices like those of Mlandu that must multiply such that we can also claim our rightful place in our country of birth.”
Letter to UCT community from Vice-Chancellor Dr Mamokgethi Phakeng commenting on Mlandu’s call to action:
“Many will agree with him and many will differ. He has a right to express his views and others have a right to express their differing views. We believe that moments such as these can be an educational opportunity for all involved.
We wish to act in ways that do not escalate matters negatively. It is interesting to note that some of the voices of complaint on the issue are as violent, divisive and hurtful as what they accuse the speaker of. We do not wish to prolong or add to that narrative.
We appreciate the fact that instances where the wording “one settler, one bullet” is used present us with the complexity of South Africa’s history. There are a range of views about the wording: from those who consider it hate speech to those who see it as a positive political statement. South African courts have not made a finding about whether the “one settler, one bullet” slogan is hate speech.”
Former DA Cape Town councillor and De Lille supporter Shaun August in City Press:
“The DA cannot claim absolution from institutional racism. It is embedded in the culture of the party. Beneficiaries of structural injustices within the party work hard to ensure that the status quo remains the same, that power remains in their hands and that they continue to reap the benefits of this embedded privilege.
Let me remind everyone that the DA CEO, COO and most of their executive directors (including their head of elections and research) and directors are mostly white. Further, their federal executive chairperson and both his deputies are white – these are the most senior administrators and leaders in the DA. I encourage any journalist to investigate this claim.”
Mail & Guardian editorial on the Rustenburg Girls Junior School racial nontroversy:
“It’s hard to imagine what it must be like to be a pupil at the Rustenburg Girls’ Junior School in Cape Town’s Rondebosch. The teachers are white, most of pupils are white and the dominant culture is (unsurprisingly) white […].
At a fundamental level, being a black student meant being ‘other’.” This heartfelt, despairing call for recognition, to abolish the othering of children, yes children, must surely strike home with the school governing body, parents, teachers and the Western Cape education department who, despite their mouthing of the words “transformation”, “committed” and “diversity”, recognise their complicity in perpetuating divisions, otherwise known in a different language as apartheid.”
Julius Malema to a consultative council on the financial sector organised by the EFF:
“We asked someone a question in parliament during one of the hearings and we say ‘are you a racist?’ and he says ‘no, I am not a racist.’ And outside we say ‘but that guy should’ve said he’s racist.’ He should have said, ‘yes, I am racist, because it is a problem I have. And I am trying to deal with it. That problem.’ You must first acknowledge it, that you have that problem, and say ‘I am trying to deal with it’. So when we say there are some Indians who are racist, if you are not racist don’t even feel affected. If you say, ‘blacks are… like sex, and make babies, and alcohol, they don’t love school’. [I say] ‘Who, me? You are not describing me, that is not me, that is not me.’ But if you know you have got that problem then you are going to say, ‘hey, hey, stop that! Stop that!’ Because you will not want to hear the truth. About yourself. There is no Indian who is going to be chased out of South Africa. There is no white person who is going to be chased out of South Africa. They will leave on their own. Why? Because empowerment of black people threatens privilege.”
Richard Poplak in the Daily Maverick on Malema’s Great Betrayal of the Left:
“Have the EFF squandered the five years since their inception? By no means. Their lawfare tactics and political nous were essential to defeating the Zuma regime. Their ground game in certain parts of the country remains enormously effective, and they’ve been supporting land occupations in crowded townships like Alexandra and Seshego that have resulted in genuinely interesting deals with (white) landowners. Indeed, the ANC and the DA would have continued to play whack-a-mole with land reform had the EFF not so skilfully pushed the issue. That said, because of the EFF’s recent loss of focus, the momentum behind expropriation without compensation is fizzling away.”
ANC statement on the Constitutional Review Committee’s decision, by majority vote, to change Section 25 of the constitution:
“The return of the land to the rightful owners, who are the indigenous Blacks and Africans in particular from whom the land was stolen is a critical imperative. This was a gross historical injustice that must be corrected, and is essential for the restoration of the dignity of our people, and their full economic empowerment.”
Former ANC President Jacob Zuma, speaking in isiZulu to hundreds of pensioners and ANC supporters in KwaMashu, north of Durban:
"We are impoverished today and live in rocky areas because of the land issue. There was no compensation when our land was taken from us, so there should be no compensation when we take the land back.”
UNISA’s policy with regards to promoting and appointing academics, as described by Belinda Bozzoli in the Daily Maverick:
“If the [SAHRC] report is taken merely as a record of anecdotes, however, it is possible to glean from it some preliminary idea of what ails Unisa. And it is not pretty. Focusing almost entirely on the College of Law, but also the College of Accounting Sciences and one or two others, the report suggests that the university has fallen into the trap of setting rigid race and gender quotas for itself and expecting appointments and promotions to conform. And it appears to have set about implementing these quotas with a sort of Stalinist zeal.
There is, it seems, no room for humanity here. The personal situations of individuals are of no concern to the guardians of the quota, the human resources department and the employment equity office. Quotas are applied at the short-listing stage. This means that an applicant for a job who does not meet the quota requirement stands no chance of being short-listed, let alone interviewed. The HR department complains that there is “resistance” to this in two colleges. This is hardly surprising. This is probably unconstitutional, certainly inhumane and bound to threaten quality.“
Discovery Group Adrian Gore on Discovery Bank’s blacks-only share scheme, as reported by Business Insider:
“The plan is for up to 10% of the shares in the new Discovery Bank to be owned by its black depositors, Discovery group CEO Adrian Gore announced on Wednesday. “The intention is that when black depositors join the bank, they will be given a share of the equity based on certain parameters... That will then enable them to own a share of the bank,” said Gore. The exact details are still being being worked out. Those include what financial behaviour by customers will be rewarded with more shares (or penalised with fewer shares) in line with Discovery Bank's "behavioural banking" approach. The shares will be entirely vendor-financed, with no payments required from customers, Gore said – and so zero risk for those customers.”
Discovery’s standard reply on social media to irate white clients threatening to cancel their memberships, in response:
“Our vision is to build a financially stronger South Africa through a modern, sustainable South African Bank. We’re committed to supporting the long-term transformation goals of the financial services industry – and the country. It’s therefore important for us to align to the sector transformation targets – and we are doing this by recognising some of our first black clients by letting them share in the growth of the bank. We value all our clients and have built the Bank with all members in mind - and we look forward to welcoming all South Africans.”
Thuli Madonsela on Twitter explaining to Gareth van Onselen (in response to his criticism of the scheme) why giving free bank shares to members of the black elite will promote substantive equality in South Africa:
“I’d like to invite you @GvanOnselen to our #SocialJusticeMPlan project that seeks to acknowledge and heal the divisions of the past. One of the stories I tell is about teaching 8 year olds about remedial social justice using a game of blues and pinks. In the game a portion of the kids war blue and the other pink. When the whistle blows only the blues are allowed to run with running shoes. At the second whistle they must stop. The kids are told you are now equal and At the third whistle both blues and pinks must run. When the pinks are allowed to run, they are not given shoes.
The pattern that ensues is that the tastes of the pinks catch up with the slowest of the blues but the blues are always ahead. The kids are told this is equality to the justified protest of the pinks. What if we had a second set of blues and pinks. Relay style, the bee blues and pinks were only allowed to get their batons from the blues. You get sboatten of historically accumulated social advantages and disadvantages and reinforcement of disadvantage. Is that equality?”
Intellidex’s Stuart Theobold also trying to make the same argument on Twitter:
“From what has been said by Discovery Bank, the deal will involve no equity contribution by black shareholders. Therefore no risk of capital loss as in African Bank. The Discovery deal therefore is very likely to have a positive impact on black shareholders that participate. #whitetwitter will not lose anything from the deal. Discovery Bank is a company funded by its shareholders.
The cost of the deal is born by those shareholders, who have decided to comply with the Code. #whitetwitter are not parties to the deal. But mostly, #whitetwitter could introspect about what it implies to try and obstruct an effort to address our Apartheid legacy. The scars are still with us. #whitetwitter has a moral responsibility to use their resources to support transformation, not obstruct it.”