Taliban and me

Here’s a look at a proud moment in any columnist’s career – his first complaint from the South African Human Rights Commission. Apparently, I’d been nasty to Russians. Here’s the letter I received. And a little further down, you’ll find the letter I sent in reply. A letter to which I have yet to receive an answer of any sort, a year later.

And my reply:

Dear Sir and/or Madam
Your list of selective quotes from my column does not make it clear how my column might “constitute a violation of the limitation of the right to freedom of expression by advocating hatred based on race and/or gender.”
My initial defence will therefore have to be general.
1. In my obviously satirical column, I specifically indicate that my use of the term “Russians” is to denote a stereotypical type of tourist, and that I do not mean Russians in general.
2. The device of pretending that I want to join the Taliban is obviously an absurdity designed to highlight the exaggerated stereotyping I do in the article, and therefore gets the reader to question the statements I’m making. This device means that the reader is prompted to understand that I am grossly exaggerating for the purpose of satire, and that I am in fact presenting two diametrically opposed personae in the column – the one, the aggrieved tourist, the other, the satirical columnist.
3. I make sure that the reader is left with a closing remark that highlights that this is a satirical column – to whit, the idea that the Taliban will let me tailor-make my prejudices to my own ends.
4. The descriptions of tourists by the side of the pool are empirically derived, and refer to specific people.
5. The column, in its entirety, also makes fun of South African tourists, and indeed of myself. This device allows satire to take criticism of people, events or concepts, and deflect it onto the reader him- or herself. For example: “But bad dress sense and total lack of style is something I can handle. Hey, I live in South Africa, where you can’t even get a good loincloth to fit you, and where men actually have things called party jeans.” This device means that I am, in effect, telling the reader that we all hold prejudices, but we’d better include ourselves in those prejudices. This, I firmly believe, is the way satirists teach people to be more aware of racism, gender bias and prejudice in general.
6. Another example is the following: “I thought it was all a bit of a fuss considering how cheap the admission price was anyhow, even to a South African for whom the word Euro is something you say when you hop into a dinghy.” This sentence, in the context of the column, is again a pointer for the reader. It indicates that I’m aware that as a tourist, I might be naïve about the other peoples that I am encountering.
7. Another example from the column in question, to emphasise that I always include the author (and by extension, the reader) in my satire, which effectively breaks down the idea that this is an easy “us vs. them” scenario: “Since rural women appear to do all the work in South Africa, this kind of prohibition would spell disaster to the male South African way of life, best summed up as “Laziness”.”
8. The column in question is littered with these safeguards against anyone taking my satire as serious criticism. It’s something I take very, very seriously. I would hate South Africans to lose the capacity for making fun of themselves and others, but at the same time I’m very careful to foreground the fact that readers need to learn that what they (and I) are doing has to be conscious, and that we must never believe the stereotypes we’re using for satirical effect have any real existence in the world.
In conclusion, I think the column has to be situated in context. All my columns are satirical, and the News24 reader who reads them regularly knows exactly how to analyse them. Readers are aware that there is no real call to action, that all comments are to be taken as hyperbole for the purpose of exposing stereotypical patterns of thought, and that the central message will always be – prejudice exists, it exists for many reasons, and we need to be vigilant about the way we understand our own prejudices and those of others.
Additionally, these columns do not stand unquestioned. There is a healthy debate about the issues, and therefore always many more sides to the story than the ones I initially publish. For example, this comment, by, I assume, a relative of your complainant:
“What a load of rubbish!
“14/01/2009 13:29
“What a silly and simple article. Clearly you are an idiot. Your stereotype of the Russians is a cliche and even the Russians think its a joke, its just that the joke is about which kinds of fools would think Russian behave like this? Let me take a wild stab in the dark here, your a midddle class Brit, new money and first generation graduate? Grow up pommy and come over to Russia before you join in the stupidity of believing that they are all just pimps and whores. – Richard Lamb”
I would submit that a platform that allows the immediate and robust repudiation of stereotypes is one that works towards alleviating racism and prejudice in our country, rather than the opposite.

Yours sincerely

Chris Roper

And if you can’t get enough of Russians, here’s the original column: Why I’m joining the Taliban.

1. 

   Sipho Hlongwane says:

   January 25, 2010 at 4:18 pm

   There’s nothing I abhor than having to explain myself because some dullard didn’t get my jokes, which are often satirical in nature, but also self-deprecating and thus obviously not to be taken literally.

   It comes with the territory when writing for a South African audience, I suppose.
2. 

   Chris says:

   January 25, 2010 at 4:21 pm

   Well… that would be a characteristic of most audiences, I think. Not just South Africans.
3. 

   Helen says:

   January 25, 2010 at 4:49 pm

   I do enjoy the fact that most people posting insulting comments in response to columns such as the above end up defeating the entire “logical” basis of their reponses by confusing “your” and “you’re”, “their” and “there”. Presumably you’re evil rhetoric whips them up into such a froth that there two busy replying to check they’re spelling before replying, not so Mr Lamb?

   I do believe Nigel Powers said it best: “There are only two things I hate in life; people who are intolerant of other cultures, and the Dutch.” Perhaps Dutch is some sort of code for “muppets”.

   I’d join the Taliban with you but that whole white robe and flak jacket look is so 2001…
4. 

   The Rock&Roll MD says:

   January 25, 2010 at 10:38 pm

   Wow, that is simultaneously scary and strangely droll to have a human rights commission take issue with very obviously comic writing. I guess the only thing that would be more frightening would be if you published this in the United States… you’d get Homeland Security all over you, Mr. Rooper, for threatening to join the Taliban, and doubtless, a memorable search, if not an unforgettable interrogation from some of our experts. I wonder how our respective governments would react to Jonathan Swift’s modest proposal?? Really enjoyed your response. So tactful, so elegant.
5. 

   Chris says:

   January 26, 2010 at 10:48 am

   As long as we’re all ABSOLUTELY clear that I’d rather sit through a James Blunt concert than join the Taliban. It’s marginal, but the lesser of two evils.
6. 

   Kenda says:

   January 26, 2010 at 12:13 pm

   Now I am super confused. So Russians aren’t pasty white pimps named Boris, hanging around the pool with the lubricated Barbie whores? Its all so confusing, all Europeans look the same to me.
7. 

   Susan Hayden says:

   January 26, 2010 at 4:16 pm

   Sheesh. I’m not sure you should even have justified that with a serious response. It would be funny if it wasn’t so scary. You did well. Slippery slopes, my friend…