Global discrimination

Global discrimination

When the coin is flipped for more than three spins and goes on to reveal the same odds, then one should know that the chances of it revealing anything different are pretty slim: for then the number of times the heads flip will constantly be higher than the number of times the tails will be flipped in the toss of a coin.
One could have wished that the world is a truthful place, unlike the glaring reality that is described by Dale Carnegie in his How to Make Friends and Influence People where he defines the human creature as naturally tending towards racism and self-interest.

In an elective affinity type of manner, humans gather on the basis of common interest, which forms the basis of any institution registered and unregistered; from the family to the church, from the community council to the mosque, all human institutions social, political, or religious have a common root that is found in common interest. The basis of common interest is found in personal interest that in its search for companionship finds kindred personal interests as are found in other individuals within which the single individual lives.

The basic truth is that no two people with different interests can be found sharing similar spaces on an ordinary day, they have to be forced by law to do so. But the sad thing is that the law can be broken despite its almost supernatural power to keep human minds and characters in line with the basic requirements of the intended universal good of societal living: peace.

Human society seems to have had a need to gather together since the species came into existence. Surrounded by other creatures far stronger and more ferocious than his or her hairless self, the human creature had to find ways to defend his or her life against the forces of nature, the only weapon being a more than average brain that could discern the use of tools better than the other creatures.
The brain is therefore that which makes the human being better than the other animals of the world, and being the seat of the mind, the brain helps mankind have some level of control over the other creatures. The only problem is that it is this same mind that is used by humans to oppress other humans that may be different in terms of colour, tendency, and habit.

Who appears different in terms of manners or colour of skin, affiliation, culture, religion, and lately politics is soon ostracised for their difference in behaviours considered ‘usual’ in the myriad of behaviours found in varying human societies across the globe.
People have been attacked and fatally wounded in events whose basis lies in their being different in terms of accepted norms and behaviours as are found in the human society they find themselves living at a given point in time. The lack of acceptance that we are different seems to be the lead cause when it comes to the fomenting of that undesirable and chaotic human activity: war.

It is with a kind of guarded interest that one begins to analyse the events as they unfold in the world today, and to try and trace their roots in terms of why they occur at the scale they do.
Despite having gone through two world wars preceded by extended periods of slavery, one would have thought that the human mind and society would have by this moment learned that we are all similar despite the differences that are largely external and can be attributed more to habit and circumstance than what is primal or makes us who we are.
It is not the community that we grew up in that defines who we are, it is the final achievements in the course of a lifetime that do. Though many of us would want to hold the notion that the type of religion we follow determines how we behave, the fact of the matter is that our behaviour largely finds its root in the circumstances we come across in the different moments of our lives.

In the present day political age where the idea of social mobility largely depends on affiliation, one would be tempted to think that connections to other people in the party are what keeps us progressing.
The truth however, is to the contrary, for the party we follow is merely an appendage of our self-interest, that is, we follow the party because the manifesto it presents is inclined to our personal interests and this leads to our gathering in competition with those that have an opposing view.

Politics has taken the control of almost every sphere of human society, from economics to religion, social welfare to constitutional formation. It is the political structure of the world that determines how things pan out on a regular day, and it can be safely presumed that whatever event occurs in the world can be traced back to politics, for it is politics that forms more than 90 percent of the world’s governments.
This therefore means that one should try and understand why political tendencies are as they are in terms of their primal social influences.

The most basic reality human beings gather is for reasons of personal interest, whether it be for safety or welfare, the basis to our coming together in groups is based on the primal need to protect the self and those under one’s watch who cannot fend as well for themselves.
There is no wrong in this gathering, what is wrong is when the interests of one sector of society take precedence over those of the other sectors that are existent within the given society.
It is wrong when individual opinion takes charge of the feelings of the mass with the end result being anarchy as was seen in the case of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party. One gets the feeling that the declaration the megalomaniac made that the Third Reich would last for a thousand years is panning out to be true, expressing itself in a thousand different forms.

The Rwandan genocide of 1994 received almost no visible response from the United Nations, and this can be attributed to the simple fact that Rwanda is an African state. This kind of response, if one were to break it down to the simple, finds its answer in the simple fact that the largely Eurocentric organisation saw Rwanda as just another heathen state, that it was natural for the ‘savages’ to mow each other down.
There were no wreaths for the massacred, but there were wreaths for those 15 killed in 1999 Columbine High killings, there were wreaths just a year after the Rwandan genocide in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people and injured 680 others.

There are wreaths when fatalities of wars private and large-scale occur in certain regions of the world, the silence that follows certain events of anarchy or natural disaster in other parts of the world is almost deafening, forcing one to question the verity of the seeming concern from NGOs and organisations tasked and formulated with the sole purpose of addressing the distress of fellow human beings regardless of region or religion.
The fact of the matter is that all of us are in the end just plain human, different only at a super-epidermal level, similar in all ways at the sub-epidermal level.

However, it seems that the mentalities of racism inculcated by colonialism and instituted by the Third Reich ideologies get the better of this simple understanding and fact: white begins to think it is better than black, and the latter deems itself the father of all human colours, and the war goes on non-end.
Cyclone Idia tore through Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe and left more than 215 people dead in its wake, there is utter silence from fellow SADC member states. The last two weeks have been a series of chaotic events which were all acknowledged with wreaths and it vexes one’s understanding why there are no elegiac words or eulogies for fellow brothers and sisters that perished due to natural disasters that may befall any one nation at any point without forewarning. There is a definition that can be forwarded: the history of violence we were subjected to actually made us callous to the realities of fellow humans that live around us.

Scattered on the basis of clan and tribe, it will take some serious communal introspection for the African and the human being to come to grips with the fact that there are others who are equally as important living on the continent and the globe. We shall surely regress if certain events are dismissed on the basis of location and race.
A disaster is a disaster regardless of where and to who it happened, it does not make sense why acknowledgement of the fact should be on the basis of tribe, clan and country.

An Ethiopian Airlines flight crashed six minutes after take-off, killing all 157 passengers and crew on board, and the United Nations spoke because some of its workers were among the dead, there was a lot of outcry for the departed, but it was not as much as the outpouring of grief that followed the killing of 50 Islam devout by the lone gunman Brendan Tarrant in Christchurch, New Zealand. There were wreaths laid as far as Cape Town in South Africa. I do not remember seeing any laid for the 157 in the same city.

There is always some type of double standard when it comes to disasters on the African continent, and the truth of the fact is that they are often hushed up like shameful wrongs (remember the xenophobic attacks of South Africa if you have any doubts).

We have not come to grips with our humanity, that it is fallible, that it is futile, and that we need to care more than we presently do if the double standards with which events of tremendous magnitude are currently treated are to be done away with. Events are publicised based more on their location than on their real impact on the lives of the global citizens.

The world fails to rid itself of the scourge of violence and chaos because it is in effect a highly racialised entity. The crash could not be given the attention it deserves because it occurred in Ethiopia, but the gunman’s killing spree actually disturbed a ‘peaceful’ New-Zealand.

There is a clear anti-Muslim mentality ever since 9/11 attacks, and the world has not been doing enough to curb the rising hatred towards other fellow humans on the basis of religion, culture or set of beliefs. The self-professed fascist (Brendan Tarrant) who killed 50 people in Christchurch will soon be forgotten as his predecessors in Norway (Anders Behring Breivik who killed 77 and injured 319 in 2011), and Sweden (Anton Lundin Petterson who killed 4 in 2015).
Breivik was sentenced to only 21 years in ‘preventive custody’ for his heinous act, and nothing was said thereafter. 21 years is an insult to the families of the victims and the human society at large because it means that we live in a world where hate will go on to fuel revenge.

The events in Christchurch have been followed up by those in Utrecht in the Netherlands. All of the attacks are linked to the cliché of the moment ‘terrorism’. Though it only became popular with Osama bin Laden’s 2001 Twin Tower attacks, it had been on the vocabulary for some long period before then. From Timothy Mc Veigh to Ted Kaczynski the deed was already being done 6 to 7 seven years before bin Laden became famous for it. Perhaps it is terrorism, but one begins to realise that it is now used for a more morbid purpose, to gloss over the deeper dangers of racism, psychosis, deep-sat hate for others and religious intolerance.

There is no terrorism, there is only the reality that some figures tend to think they are better than everyone else as taught by the system within which they live. We live in a world that lives in hate.
The freedoms of the present times are actually chains meant to tie down the minds of the gullible. Freedom means rights, and it also means that one should honour their responsibilities as well. The global powers that be always dictate to everyone how they should live as countries, but they forget that it is also their responsibility to acknowledge the full brevity or expanse of any deed that impairs the peaceful progress of humanity as a nation and a citizen of the world.

That the ICC shall try and sentence African dictators only is a double standard of the worst kind, all are equal before the eyes of the law, and events like the mass killing of people on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion should be tried in The Hague and not the state courts where leniency seems to be the call of the day when it comes to trying serious cases of criminality.
How one who tinkers with war and instability should be declared as only ‘unstable’ is a mere escape from the truth. The discrimination with which Africa and the Third World has been treated should come to an end.

By Tsépiso Mothibi

Previous The biggest single killer disease
Next ABC fiasco plus lazy journalists

Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/thepostc/public_html/wp-content/themes/trendyblog-theme/includes/single/post-tags-categories.php on line 7

About author

You might also like


‘Listen to me, dammit’

Don’t be alarmed, readers, the title isn’t me talking, but an imaginary character, male or female, who wants to hold forth and who isn’t prepared to listen to what anyone


Set up a Ministry of Environment, Water & Forestry

WELL, let me put this categorically.I don’t read my articlesbut do enjoy those written by myfriend Ramahooana Matlosa and ofcourse, Muckraker. I have been trying to convinceone of my friends


Long live, live PAC broadcasts!

To see the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in action has been instructional. Many of us until quite recently, had limited knowledge of the role or function of this committee let