The question of inferiority and the moral high ground

Front National

The question of inferiority and the moral high ground
The question of inferiority and the moral high ground - Image - Front National

In the days of youthful anger, when you became the victim of a fight at school and plotted revenge by the intention of beating the opponent to a pulp behind the pavilion after school tomorrow, my father used to say: “Show yourself that you are the better man.” It was only much later that I understood that this had nothing to do with weakness, but all with keeping the advantage of morality.

I was thinking about this when I saw some statements and posts on the social media in which black South Africans expressed joy in the misfortune of other people through the severe winter storms in the Cape and the destructive fires in Knysna.

The question of inferiority and the moral high ground – Image – Front National

The question of inferiority and the moral high ground - Image - Front National
The question of inferiority and the moral high ground – Image – Front National

“White supremacy” is an accusation often thrown at white people in this country as an excuse to blame the misfortune of the black man upon. And it makes me wonder what it is in the black existence, people who have been exposed to missionaries, school education, social media, TV sets, books, cell phones and numerous other vehicles of civilized behavior for 3 centuries, that could turn a mob to savage behavior within seconds? You seldom, if indeed ever, see a group of white people instantly turning on another person wearing a T-shirt of an opposition political party, stone him half to death and put a tire around his neck and burn him alive.

The answer, I believe, is the concept of moral behavior.

In South Africa the white man lost his political power, he is a minority cultural group, he is marginalized in the economy, and therefore he has only one real advantage left to him: To keep the moral high ground. And that is what might be perceived by the black man as white superiority.

If a sense of being superior to another human being exists purely based on the color of the skin, then that sense is in all humanitarian aspects wrong, for nobody can change the color of his skin. If it is however based on conduct and expression, then the person who keeps the civilized moral high ground, has the full right of claiming superiority.

How could one possibly argue that acts and expressions of revenge, of murder and bloodshed, of satanic cruelty and delight in the misfortune of others is an acceptable morality, I fail to understand.

A while ago we witnessed expressions of indignation when Steve Hofmeyr said: “Black people created apartheid, go figure.” The same response, in a slightly altered way, we witnessed after the statements made by Judge Mabel Jansen and in the replies from Helen Zille after disciplinary action against her by the DA leadership. The immediate response was: “Typical racist white supremacist behavior!” It never was. Every single one of the statements in question dealt with the morality of behavior and conduct, not one dealt with race. Moral inferiority can be changed, racial inferiority not. And therefore it is easier to project the accusation from the first (which it actually is) to the second (which it is not), because of the excuse: “I can do nothing about my skin color.”

And that is where so many black South Africans lose the plot altogether. They believe that the white man regards himself as being superior because he is white. They believe that the white man makes the black man feel inferior because he is black.

It is not, and never has been a racial supremacy. It is a moral supremacy. Because when a fire destroys a hundred shacks in an informal settlement, the whole community of black and white helps to alleviate the suffering. The white community does not (apart from a few exceptional cases where the moral high ground is already lost) turn to the social media to say: “Brilliant! I hope they all burn to death!” Yet, we experience these statements of finding satisfaction in misfortune, of revenge and hatred and prejudice and racism, coming from black South Africans when houses burn in Knysna. This questionable morality falls even lower when you learn that a young family of three lost their lives through this disaster and these people are rejoicing in that!

One of these commentators, Busisiwe Seabe, then manages to fall to an even lower moral notch when you see that she quotes a Bible verse on her Twitter profile and she regards herself as an activist for women’s rights (a commendable humanitarian cause). Yet, how can we believe a commitment to a moral cause, if we have the evidence of a complete lack of moral compassion in the behavior of the person when it comes to basic tolerance and human compassion?

We can only respond by saying: “You will, alas, feel inferior as long as you allow yourself to feel inferior because the complex of inferiority grows from your own conviction, your own beliefs and the conduct and statements you make to feed the monster you create in yourself. The white man can do nothing to change that, it lies within you to change that. And if you refuse to do that, then accept that the white man is not prepared to let go of his moral high ground, because that is basically the only thing which you have not taken from him yet. And therefore the white man wants to exist away from an environment where there is a non-compatible moral value system alive.”

Read the original article by Daniel Lötter on Front Nasionaal SA – blad

South Africa Today – South Africa News

SOURCEFront National