"As the oppressed we are not instigators or initiators of violent or forceful means. We are really just underdogs striking back: may we therefore so be painted."
The rhetoric of some following the narrative of
protests around the country, whether organized, sporadic or spontaneous,
usually has a tone of “we really support your cry but ag, this violence is
really not helping”. While it is expected and understandable for supporters,
bystanders and those who are not directly involved to encourage and promote a
“non-violence” approach, there should be a consistency in understanding the
climate of what could be deemed as a “crisis”. The language policy and
institutional culture at the University of Pretoria (now to be referred to as
the Panoptic) is not reflective of a transformed post-apartheid society . The
recent events have not mushroomed out of thin air. It is not a coincidence that
students of the Panoptic are split into two. The reality is that the seeds of
discord have long been sown perpetuated in our daily interactions even
symbolized by the names of the venues we attend classes in, up to the coding of
the modules we are enrolled in. The Panoptic is therefore systematically
organized to ensure oppressive order as a norm. This systematic oppression is
so orderly that the black English speaking child is expected to actually
identify with this Panoptic proudly even unto upholding its name and image
honourably outside of its boundaries. The system harbours the residue of
apartheid subtly. The Panoptic aims to be a home to all yet it linguistically
and culturally esteems one language and culture over the other. It fails to
recognize the importance of integration and transforming its complexion to
truly best represent the country it is located in. The exacerbating factor in
this regard is how the apathy against proactive initiatives towards change is
consistent with a disregard for black lives and a recognition that they don’t
really matter that much. The Panoptic’s stance is consistent with the
perspective of a supremacist. That is that whatever is inconsistent with the
oppressive norms of its history is to be regarded as unimportant or at least
not worthy of it being inconvenienced. It therefore puts students of black
descent on the backfoot as in endeavouring to engage the Panoptic, there is a
concurrent struggle of being recognized by the Panoptic as humans deserving
equal standing. The Panoptic views the protestors as subhuman, hooligans,
thugs, monkeys and even dogs. The Panoptic will therefore employ its instruments
of power to ensure that that is the narrative which ought to perpetuate to delay and hinder civil discussion.
As “hooligans” we agree that violence should be avoided- but honestly, this is
not at all costs. Violence becomes a necessary response given a hostile climate
coupled with physical provocation. There seems to be a general disregard for
the humanity of protesters as human who also get angry. We are “hooligans”
angered by systematic, historic and cultural oppression. Anger is such a
powerful tool for liberating black people that it is justifiable when it turns
into violence against a system which has not seen, heard or felt us. When the
oppressed and disadvantaged are constantly undermined and having exhausted all
meaningful ways of addressing an issue at hand, the resolution to use violence
is justifiable. This is based on the proportionality of the grievance. It is a
constant struggle of aligning oneself and incorporating oneself within a system
which seeks to exclude one’s existence; a system which refuses to acknowledge
the black child or her pain. Protests against the language policy are also a
blow against white supremacy. To have a “roll over in the name of avoiding
violence” approach is good, but not when it translates into succumbing to the
superiority complex the Panoptic has- what then is the meaning of “protest”? As
“hooligans” we will to do away with white supremacy, privilege and
anti-blackness in its manifestations at the institution. This takes primacy and
as “thugs” all means necessary will be employed, including but not limited to
violence. Violence is not the primary of the means but when it is expedient it
becomes the order of the moment. This is dependent on a number of factors.
However, simply put, when confronted with violence, and when there is an
obstacle to an objective it usually becomes the only alternative. It may be
argued that it does not solve much but may it also be acknowledged that it does make one listen. It
is a bargaining point and our catharsis. Through it there is expression of deep
rooted pain against long standing injustices. Whenever violence is used it has
been seen that those who are without a voice have found a way to provoke
reaction from the establishment. The violence is symbolic of the violence faced
daily as its repercussions are as costly in the daily life of a black child (if
not more). To fight or take flight is always the option faced by those standing
up to the system. To fight or take flight will remain her prerogative. It is
really a no brainer when the Panoptic does not recognize “peace” as a
legitimate method of solution.
"“Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.”
The violence which erupts in the Panoptic nowadays is actually a reaction from the “thugs” “hooligans” “monkeys” and “dogs” who have experienced dehumanizing and racial slurs from those whose privilege the Panoptic is protecting. This privilege is not going to be let go solely through peaceful talks as the Panoptic has made it clear that it is an ineffective strategy towards change. It is within this context we therefore have to view whatever is depicted as “hooliganism” or “barbarianism”. The black child is firstly dehumanized and then after she is treated like a dog. The black child is oppressed by the white capitalist establishment and she then becomes an underdog. Those who are protesting against the Panoptic’s chains are underdogs, underdogs who are very capable of striking back. This is the perpetual reality behind the forceful demonstrations. As the oppressed we are not instigators or initiators of violent or forceful means. We are really just underdogs striking back: may we therefore so be painted.
