LETTER: Address my concerns, not my (supposed) character

Michael Morris, the head of media at the SA Institute of Race Relations (IRR),  gave a generous response to my letters about the IRR’s stance on race in his column, and now also on its website (“Blind spot about poor’s needs hobbles comfy intelligentsia”,  Aug. 15; “True colours”, Aug. 11; and “IRR serves own agenda”, Aug. 9).

However, as the title of the piece suggests, I am damned with faint praise as part of a “comfy intelligentsia”, insensitive to the needs of the poor. This is mere ad hominem as Morris does not address the contents of my case against the IRR in his response. Rather, he chooses to make a point about biography and privilege, with the insinuation that these distort my view of the SA situation (presumptions about me I do not think it relevant to engage at this point). Even if his account were correct, turning Morris’s own criticism towards himself and his colleagues, how would their biographies distort their own views in these debates about race, inequality and injustice in SA?

As important as those considerations can be, they leave me with a number of questions in respect to Morris’s response. How does his article address any of the concerns which I argued are the problem with how the IRR frames SA’s problems? Why does he assume the reason I care about this issue is not because of personal experience? We should all find it suspicious that we are being told to ignore my case because it supposedly comes from a “comfy intelligentsia”.

It would have been more to the point if Morris had responded to my arguments rather than attempting to cast doubt about my case through a reframing of my biography. He does not respond to the arguments I made about the IRR’s position on critical race theory or how it misinforms the public about the problem of racism through a misframing and poor interpretation of the data they collect on it. There is a position Morris marks out as his target, but it is not mine. He is essentially arguing against those who believe that “all would be well if only racism were rooted out”.

Of course, my view is not as simple as thinking that rooting out racism would solve all of our problems; it is that racism is one of this country’s serious problems that exacerbates and is a central historical reason for these problems, such as the demographic dimensions and character of poverty in SA. I would ask at this point why Morris chooses to discuss a view I don’t hold, given that his piece is a response to my letters. His comment (intentionally?) sends the wrong impression to the reader about what my argument against the IRR is.

Though put quite gently through praise, the message in Morris’s piece can be read to suggest that the IRR knows best and can speak on behalf of and as representative of black South Africans (and South Africans more generally). Despite this position sounding quite paternalistic, it is exactly what is in contest in my criticism of the IRR in how it frames and presents our opinions in a misleading fashion — particularly in its ill-construed interpretations of the data of their dubiously designed surveys. 

Phila Mfundo Msimang, via e-mail

JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an e-mail with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by e-mail to letters@businesslive.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.