Where is wisdom to be found in the so-called Zenophobic personality?

The world is divided and this is not unique to the current generation but it must be noted that wisdom is elusive in the identity and properties of a so-called Zenophobic personality.

What is xenophobia? Who stands out as the most eloquent and visible human shining star who can best articulate the properties inherent in a person who would hate another human being so much to permit the occurrence of self-help extermination of another person who has not asked for any handout to live?

A group exists called TOWARDS MEDIA EXCELLENCE that was created by members of the 1873 Network who shared and still share a common interest in lifting the standards of journalism so that balanced and non-partisan reporting can follow.

On the question of xenophobia, does anyone stand out who can unpack this phenomenon that permits public law and order to be substituted by lawlessness in the name of protecting jobs and some weird and unbridled nationalism?

This morning Mr. Innocent Netanyahu shared the following message on the WhatsApp group with the above-mentioned title:

In the pursuit of excellence, I thought it would be beneficial to unpack his message above to better understand his state of mind at the time he penned the above:

#1 “Zimbabweans in South Africa are heterosexuals building Afrikan family units.” Imagine you were asked to provide an interpretation of this sentence what would be the first task? Any reasonable and rational person would be compelled to unpack what message the author is trying to convey. It is self-evident that the author believes that no dispute exists on the term being used to capture all persons with Zimbabwean heritage under the term Zimbabweans. To others, this term could be offensive because persons who are legally in South Africa i.e. who have documents issued by the government of South Africa and who chose voluntarily to live and work in South Africa cease to be Zimbabweans. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for any person like Innocent Netanyahu to impose an inclusive identity on them simply to make a point that is not tested by any empirical yardstick. Heterosextuality is the business of its practitioners and as such in any constitutional dispensation it should not the business of anyone to test sexual preferences to conclude from his imagination where the majority lies. In one sentence, he has made many conclusions without suffering the burden to prove who is a Zimbabwean, South African, heterosexual, and who is building a so-called African family unit. In the construction of this missive sentence, it is clear that to Innocent, a person of Indian heritage does not qualify to be African which then begs the question of what it means to be African and who should be the judge. Can a person like Innocent be trusted to be a judge on identity or he has already shown his hand that Africa does not belong to persons he does not regard as authentic sons and daughters of the soil?

#2 “South Africans accepted white sex and its affecting their families.” In this sentence, it is clear that to Innocent an exclusive identity called South African exists. He does not explain what he relied upon to conclude that South Africans (as defined by him) accepted white sex and this acceptance is affecting the nameless and faceless South Africans that only his superior mind has created in order to make a generalization that there exists a causal and direct relationship between being white and accepting his constructed logic.

#3 “Homophiles are violent and aggressive.” He then proceeds to generalize that HOMOPHILES as an IDENTITY are violent and aggressive. He fails to provide the factual basis on which this ambitious conclusion is made and authenticated. This kind of generalization is what divides people than unites them. Should it be anyone’s business to count human beings who are homophiles (who hate homosexuals and related persons) or not? What if there exist human beings who find homosexuality unacceptable but choose to do nothing about their personal preferences? Who is entitled to judge other human beings?

#4 “The second reason those Zimbabweans keeping on working in SA are earning a stable currency which they are sending home to sustain their brothers and sisters or parents and even investing in lands.” This statement is loaded as it makes a person like Innocent interpose his reasoning on the reasoning of persons who are in SA for various reasons that they have no obligation to share with any pedestrian but as long as they hold legitimate papers, then the law of SA should give them a sense of comfort that they are entitled to benefit from the equal benefit of the protection of the law without favour or prejudice.

Two Zimbabweans could give birth to a child in SA but their offspring has the right to have a relationship with SA on account of their birthplace if the laws permit, and as such the household will be divided into SA citizens and SA documented Zimbabwean-born residents.

#5. “SA fears Zimbabwe’s influence on their country, we are happy straight people owning our resources and the means of production. We are healthy people too.” Someone once remarked that the best Zimbabweans are the ones who choose not to cross the border and end up with an address in another country. A person who has left home has an obligation to lean forward and call the place where he lays his head, home. The idea that SA, a creature of humans, can fear another creature of statute, Zimbabwe’s purported influence exposes the bankruptcy that informs the alleged conflict that can arise between countries. The people who live in SA seize to be under the control of the Zimbabwean government but must obey the laws of the host country. The idea of compounding human identity to allow a person like Innocent to employ the term WE speaks volumes about why problem-solving is always elusive when the idea of human life and meaning escapes the mind. A lion born in Zimbabwe does not become a South African lion when it crosses into SA territory. If this is correct, why would a human being carry the identity of a place of birth? The Freedom Charter of SA was framed on the idea that SA belongs to the people who live in it and not only to those born in it for good cause.