The dividing line between hate speech and righteous anger is becoming harder to identify, says Max du Preez.
The role of media in creating a climate for gross human rights violations or its extreme manifestation – genocide – has changed fundamentally since the Rwanda genocide 20 years ago.
We are unlikely to see another blatant example like RTLM, Hutu Power’s notorious radio station. But the danger of media whipping up dangerous hatred and prejudice has not gone away.
This was one of the themes during a month-long programme in Joburg I took part in, called Reflections on 100 Years of War, Genocide and Mass Violence, commemorating a century since World War I and two decades since the Rwanda genocide.
One big difference between now and 20 years ago is the spectacular rise of the internet as a vehicle for disseminating views and propaganda.
Facebook only came into existence in 2004 and Twitter in 2006 and both now play a prominent role in most conflicts.
There are no rules, no controls, no ombudsman for social media or extremist websites. No accountability.
Extreme nationalist, racist and xenophobic groups and individuals as well as militant religious fundamentalists are blossoming on the internet worldwide and in this country.
The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, for instance, uses the internet to radicalise, recruit and broadcast its propaganda. There are more ultra-right-wing and white separatist South African websites than there are newspapers and radio stations.
The kinds of views expressed on these sites could never be aired on conventional media, and so the internet and social media have become a theatre of conquest for people and groups driven by hatred and prejudice.
Very little can be done to stop this, which places a responsibility on mainstream media to bolster its own credibility and relevance and serve as a counterfoil for propaganda.
Younger people rely on social media much more than traditional media nowadays. Perhaps it is time for schools to teach youngsters how to be internet savvy and how to handle social media as part of life skills.
Some of the hatred spread on social media can be partly interpreted by the “online toxic disinhibition effect”, but more often the peddlers of hate on the internet are deadly serious and dangerous. An important question we should ask in the context of media and the dissemination of hatred and prejudice is whether the content in question, if repeated enough times, could have the effect of dehumanising the target group of people in question.
The Rwanda example is clear: if you call people cockroaches for long enough, it makes it easier for people to attack or kill those so targeted because they’re not seen as full human beings with rights any longer.
On a smaller and slightly subtler scale, we have seen this phenomenon repeated all over the world and in our country.
If the word is spread regularly enough that foreigners came to steal our jobs, cheat our citizens, steal our wives and rape our children, xenophobic attacks are likely to occur.
If black people are constantly identified as the main perpetrators of violent crimes, even otherwise half decent people find it easy to translate that into violent attacks or murder.
It is becoming harder to find the dividing line between hate speech and the right of formerly oppressed people to assert themselves and express their righteous anger at the wrongs of the past and inequalities of the present.
On top of that, free speech is guaranteed in our Constitution.
The recent robust debates on “whiteness”, privilege and economic dominance are necessary in our society today.
Far too may white people don’t even realise that they’re the beneficiaries of whiteness, or are in stark denial about it.
In the process, though, we have seen some extreme language during these public debates.
Threats of revenge and violence are not uncommon, even from political platforms. The old dream of non-racialism is dead. The anger is understandable.
One may argue that venting this anger is better than bottling it up, only to see it explode later.
But recently this anger and frustration have been abused by politicians who want to mobilise people for their own causes and divert attention from their own failures and weaknesses. This was a tactic perfected by Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe.
As the contestation for political power in South Africa heats up, the temptation will be stronger to identify the white minority as the common enemy and mobilise around it.
One of the downsides of the present discourse is that even sensitive, progressive white voices are harassed into silence. This is counter-productive.
If there was still one leading role for whites today, it would be to combat racism and the disturbing phenomenon of apartheid denialism among their ranks and promote an understanding of whiteness and privilege.
* Max du Preez is an author and columnist.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.