What is really driving the need to construct our own truths in our minds and how do we balance that with the value of reality? Why do we sometimes find it challenging to let go of our comfortable beliefs, even when faced with conflicting facts?
In the world of denialists, facts are treated more like optional accessories where you can pick and choose. Sometimes, due to your commitments to facts, you might court a crowd of enemies. Reality is, in a lot of instance, treated like a mere suggestion, whilst ‘alternative facts’ are the VIP pass to the imaginary truth headquarters.
Who needs objective truth when you can decide that up is down and east is west and its popularity as well as acceptance is the correct answer?
In the world of denialistsjust don’t try to prescribe some boring old facts – that’s just not allowed… it’s boring.
IF YOU REFUSE FACTS, YOU ARE A DENIALIST
People who refuse to accept facts are denialists. I know that it might be something that we think less about, except when the proportion of their acts of denialism is very large. Denialism is a common phenomenon where individuals or groups reject evidence. Denialists don’t care about evidence, however overwhelming it may be. They are committed to their truths, even if evidence points the other way. Individuals exhibiting denialism may believe in elaborate conspiracies to explain away the evidence, selectively focusing on data that supports their views while ignoring or dismissing contradictory information.
Denialism is a complex phenomenon that can arise from various factors, including ideological convictions, psychological biases and sociological influences. It can manifest in different forms, from political and historical denialism to scientific and social denialism. Understanding these realities is crucial for developing effective strategies to address denialism and fostering a more informed and critically thinking society. By recognising the varied nature of denialism, we can better navigate the challenges it poses and work towards creating a culture that values evidence-based decision-making and respectful discourse.
Denialism comes in different forms, but for this piece, we want to focus on political denialism.
In today’s increasingly polarised world, political denialism has become a widespread phenomenon. It disregards expertise and undermines the very foundations of informed discourse. But why is political denialism so damaging?
HISTORICAL REVISIONISM FUELS DENIALISM
Hisorical revisionism, when used to distort facts and downplay atrocities, becomes a form of political denialism with far-reaching consequences. By erasing the experiences and suffering of victims, perpetuating harmful ideologies and undermining trust in historical accounts, this practice can have a profound impact on our understanding of the past and our ability to build a more just future.
The consequences of such revisionism are dire, as it distorts our understanding of history, ignores the harm caused, undermines accountability and shapes public opinion and policy in potentially damaging ways. When used to deny or minimise human rights abuses, it can fuel further violence and discrimination, preventing communities from confronting and learning from their past. Selective interpretation of historical events can create a narrative that justifies flawed or discriminatory actions and policies.
To avoid these pitfalls, it’s crucial to approach historical narratives with a critical eye, acknowledging complexities, considering multiple perspectives and evaluating evidence-based information. By doing so, we can promote a more accurate understanding of the past and build a more equitable future, ensuring that history serves as a valuable lesson rather than a tool for justification.
APARTHEID WAS BASED ON DENIALISM
The apartheid regime in South Africa was built on denialism, with the government refusing to acknowledge the harsh realities of its policies and actions.
Separate Development
They claimed that apartheid was designed to promote separate development, but in reality, it was a system of oppression that ensured white dominance and black subjugation. If, indeed, the goal was truly separate development, it would be logical to wonder why the English and Boers (Afrikaners) did not have separate homelands as well. The reality is that apartheid was designed to maintain white dominance and privilege, not to promote separate development.
The idea of separate homelands was a mechanism to consolidate black people into specific areas, denying them access to resources and economic opportunities, continue enslaving them and deny them full citizenship in the rest of the country. The forced removals, torture, detention without trial and killings were all part of a broader campaign of violence and intimidation that was inspired by denialism.
The apartheid denialists attempted to justify Bantustans, which were supposed to be independent homelands for black people. However, these areas were ‘independently’ poor, underdeveloped and lacked resources.
An Agent Of Slavery, Deferred Payments And Monopsony (TEBA)
The Bantustans were designed to maintain control over black people, exploit their labour and deny them access to economic opportunities. The bantustans, together with countries like Lesotho, Mozambique, Eswatini and Botswana suffered tremendously through the use of Apartheid denialist agencies like The Employment Bureau of Africa (TEBA).
TEBA was merciless and vicious. The company’s actions had devastating effects on many lives. The impact of TEBA’s actions is still felt today. The harsh reality is that Apartheid Denialists used TEBA to separate and destroy families and communities who are still dealing with the consequences today.
They sourced workers (migrant workers) from these areas and bantustans and used a deferred pay system to control their movements in line with Apartheid prescriptions. A portion of a migrant worker’s salaries was withheld and paid out at the end of their contract or when they returned home. Workers would not be paid fully until they completed their contracts. This had to be slavery modified and gross exploitation.
Through TEBA, workers had limited options and were often forced to accept low wages and poor working conditions. In a legally exploitative way black workers were tied to their contracts limiting their ability to leave or negotiate better terms, perpetuating poverty and inequality in their home regions.
Denialism At Its Worst During Negotiations And Truth And Reconciliation Commission (TRC)
The apartheid regime’s denialism also hindered progress during negotiations to end apartheid. The Apartheid government’s denial of human rights abuses, blaming the victims they oppressed and justification of their actions as necessary for maintaining order undermined trust and polarised positions.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) attempted to address some of these issues, but its impact on completely dealing with denialism was not sufficient. The TRC’s legacy serves as a reminder that dealing with denialism is an ongoing process that requires continued efforts.
An Education System Based On Denialism
During apartheid, the South African government distorted historical narratives to justify as well as legitimise the racist and oppressive policies of the time. The education system played a significant role in promoting this ideology, with curricula and textbooks designed to support the apartheid regime’s views.
This manipulation of history had far-reaching consequences, distorting the understanding of South Africa’s past and perpetuating racist stereotypes and ideologies. This was denialism in the classroom. The legacy of this distorted history continues to impact South Africa’s societal discourse. The curriculum has been reformed but the effect of the past curriculum continues to affect societal relations. By acknowledging and teaching the true complexities of South Africa’s past, current and future generations can learn from the mistakes of the past and work towards a more equitable and just society.
Some Current Racists Could Be Victims Of Denialism
Some indiividuals who hold racist views may be influenced by denialism, which can distort their understanding of historical events and their ongoing impact. This can include downplaying or denying the atrocities of colonialism, slavery or apartheid and ignoring the ongoing impacts of these systems on marginalised communities.
By failing to acknowledge the past and its ongoing legacies, individuals may develop a skewed perspective that perpetuates racist attitudes and behaviours. This lack of understanding can also foster a sense of grievance or victimhood, often fueled by misinformation or a lack of exposure to diverse perspectives.
By engaging with the complexities of history and listening to the experiences of marginalised communities, individuals can begin to develop a more sober understanding of the past and its ongoing impacts. This can be an important step towards dismantling racist attitudes and working towards a more equitable society.
During my student days, I labeled some fellow students as denialists, which understandably didn’t go down well. They felt I was being unfair, even racist, by implying that their views were skewed by their whiteness. What they didn’t realise was that their stances were mainly based on maintaining racist values. However, my intention was to highlight their downplaying of apartheid’s harsh realities. I was not interested in their whiteness but was merely giving an objective, honest and scientific look at what causes their distorted view of reality. Truth hurts, sometimes. They seemed to believe that equal rights and attending the same institution meant racism was no longer an issue. I disagreed vehemently, arguing that formal equality doesn’t automatically translate to equal opportunities or experiences. The fact that we chose different hostels along racial lines was not just a matter of personal preference, as they claimed. Apartheid’s legacy continued to shape our experiences and ignoring this reality would not have made it disappear. By refusing to acknowledge the ongoing impact of apartheid, they were, in effect, denying its significance. It’s as if they preferred not to spark a conversation about the truth, one that would require them to confront their own biases and privileges. The playing field was and is not level when certain cultural expressions or preferences are implicitly expected or preferred over others. This imbalance perpetuates the inequalities that still plague our society.
That is the naked truth about denialism, apartheid and any possibility of moving beyond its ugly outcomes.
‘DON’T BRING POLITICS INTO OUR DISCUSSION”
The phrase “don’t bring politics into this” can be a convenient way to shut down discussions about human rights and social issues. By labeling certain topics as “political,” some individuals may seek to avoid critical examination or accountability.
However, issues like human rights, equality and social justice are inherently tied to power dynamics and policy decisions. It’s impossible to separate these issues from politics, as they are fundamentally about who gets what, how they get it and who decides. When we try to de-politicise these issues, we risk ignoring the underlying systems of power and privilege that shape our experiences.
By avoiding these discussions when denialists mischievously term them political, we may be avoiding the very real differences in power and privilege that exist between different groups. This can lead to a lack of understanding and lack of empathy, making it more difficult to address the root causes of social problems. Truth is politics are informed by social problems.
Acknowledging the political nature of these issues should, if not mischievously interpreted, actually lead to more productive discussions. By recognizing that power dynamics and policy decisions are at play, we can have more informed conversations about creating positive change. We can examine the impact of policies and systems on different groups and work towards creating a more just and equitable solutions. Rather than suggesting that we are voiding politics (which has no meaning) we should be embracing discussions about power, privilege and policy. By doing so, we can build a more informed and engaged citizenry, capable of working together towards a more just and equitable society. By acknowledging the inherently political nature of human rights and social issues, we can have more meaningful and effective conversations about creating positive change.
POLITICIANS VS THE MEDIA
The relationship between politicians and the media is often very contentious.
Poiticians need the media to convey their messages and shape public opinion, while the media serves as a watchdog, holding politicians accountable for their actions. However, this relationship can become strained when politicians feel misrepresented or unfairly scrutinised. In response, some politicians resort to denialism, refusing to acknowledge facts or evidence that contradict their narrative. This denialism can take many forms, including outright denials, spin doctoring or blame-shifting. By distorting reality, politicians create confusion.
POLITICAL DENIALISM IS A PRECURSOR TO FAILURE
The consequences of political denialism are severe and far-reaching.
Facts are like the GPS for our debates and decisions – without them, we are basically just driving blindfolded. We risk steering straight into policy disasters when we are avoiding fact based expert advice and evidence based thinking. Let us keep our eyes on the road and our debates fueled by facts, not assumptions.
Moreover, denialism can fuel polarisation, eroding trust in institutions and exacerbating social tensions. When facts are disregarded, the very foundations of democracy are threatened. An informed citizenry is essential for holding leaders accountable and the spread of misinformation can have serious consequences.
Ignoring the truth can be downright deadly for progress. When we dismiss evidence, we are not just thumbing our noses at facts – we are also blocking the path to real solutions. Complex problems demand honest answers, but without evidence, we’re just spinning our wheels in the mud of misinformation and conspiracy theories. And let’s be real, nothing divides us faster than untruths. Communities get polarised, trust in institutions crumbles and before we know it, we are further apart than ever. Evidence might not be glamorous, but it is the only way to build bridges and solutions that last.
Ultimately, the consequences of political denialism can be catastrophic. By prioritising unscientific belief over facts and evidence, we risk undermining the very foundations of democracy as well as our ability to address pressing social and economic issues. It is essential that we prioritise fact-based decision-making and critical thinking and work to promote a culture of transparency and accountability in our politics and public discourse.
COMBATING POLITICAL DENIALISM
Combating political denialism requires a multifaceted approach. Firstly, promoting critical thinking is crucial. This involves encouraging individuals to critically evaluate information and sources rather than accepting information at face value. By fostering a culture of critical thinking, we can empower citizens to make informed decisions and distinguish between fact and fiction.
Additionally, fostering empathy is essential. By engaging with opposing viewpoints and listening to diverse perspectives, we can build bridges of understanding and reduce polarisation. Ultimately, combating political denialism requires demanding accountability and holding leaders and institutions answerable for evidence-based decision-making.
By working together to promote critical thinking, empathy and accountability, we can build a more informed and functional democracy and ensure a brighter future for our society. In the end, acknowledging the past and confronting denialism were crucial steps towards healing and reconciliation in South Africa.