I was incensed by the painting of our President, not that he is my favourite man. I felt strongly that this kind of artistic display is dismissive of both culture, respect and dignity and has no place in our society. I accused the Goodman Gallery of aversive racism and liberal highhandedness. Not surprisingly I was attacked by many who felt that art is a legitimate form of political commentary and protest, no matter what.
What do you our readers think?
I responded by respectfully suggesting that those who have attacked my letter ‘google’ aversive racism. When they do they will discover how insidious it is, and just how destructive it can be in the delicate fabric of societal interaction.
"Sadly", I said "many of us liberals are guilty of aversive racism quite often, myself included. For us it is unconscious, for the recipient, it is deeply humiliating. Nevertheless we fall into the trap of unwittingly being dismissive of other cultures, or at least looking upon them less favourably. Hardly a day goes by when in the press and in conversation we hear that ‘they’ don’t do this or ‘they’ can’t do that."
Who is ‘they’?
So in one breath we will intellectually justify and defend a painting on the grounds of our liberal values and in another we will condescendingly scold, as Zapiro did, "the President got what he deserved" as if this is the ultimate sanction, exposing graphically our version of his poor behaviour. Dignity, culture, respect were not at issue here. ‘We’ must teach ‘them’ a lesson. Appeals against this from the President himself, and a wide range of commentators black and white fell on deaf ears, because as Steven Friedman wrote "this brand of liberal thinks they know what is best for the rest".
"In my view", I continued "the difference between liberalism and ubuntu is both profound and stark. I am sure many readers will dismiss ubuntu as a black thing, something ‘they’ believe in, part of ‘their’ culture. But it saved us from a civil war, sadly it can’t save us from liberal arrogance" and as Peter Bruce put it, "an artist with a prudish notion that you can hurt somebody you disapprove of by pulling his pants down in public and giggling as you run away, crying ‘artistic freedom’ as you go".
Many of us, both black and white are trying hard to build bridges; we are trying hard to do our bit to transform our society; we are anxious about the state of our race relations; we want a future in this country for our children; we are deeply aware of the challenges of corruption, graft, cronyism and incompetence, BUT ultimately we want to present a South Africa to the rest of the world with our heads high, a country we are proud of.
This painting will retard this process, it will alienate black from white, it will polarise, it will harm our nation-building efforts. Surely, this brand of ‘artistic freedom’ is indefensible and has no place in our democracy?
The Goodman Gallery should remove it and apologise to the nation, not just the President.
Your comments are welcome.
Steuart has done some 500 talks on South Africa's progress since 1994 and SA's prospects for the future' 
