Read on Twitter
1. In its 2nd article about Dr Lushaba, @TimesLIVE reported that it had "seen a 12-second clip of the video."
Now Dr Lushaba faces a complaint to the @SAHRCommission by @Our_DA and cancellation by @helenzille for targeting whites for 'extermination'.
UCT is investigating. https://twitter.com/TimesLIVE/status/1380136777567068163
Now Dr Lushaba faces a complaint to the @SAHRCommission by @Our_DA and cancellation by @helenzille for targeting whites for 'extermination'.
UCT is investigating. https://twitter.com/TimesLIVE/status/1380136777567068163
2. But what did Dr Lushaba say?
The full lecture is now on YouTube.
Did Dr Lushaba defend or minimise the Holocaust?
No.
Not in any way, shape, or form.
Quite the opposite.
Thread continues:
The full lecture is now on YouTube.
Did Dr Lushaba defend or minimise the Holocaust?
No.
Not in any way, shape, or form.
Quite the opposite.
Thread continues:
3. In describing an outdated theory of political science, Dr Lushaba did say the words that the Holocaust was not a crime.
But it is plain that is not his own view.
Throughout the lecture, he makes clear that the massacre of humans is evil.
But it is plain that is not his own view.
Throughout the lecture, he makes clear that the massacre of humans is evil.
4. His point is that massacres of black people did not receive the moral outrage and legal development that the Holocaust (correctly) inspired.
Immediately after saying the Holocaust wasn't a crime, he says "we must see the Holocaust in the same way we see the Herrero massacre."
Immediately after saying the Holocaust wasn't a crime, he says "we must see the Holocaust in the same way we see the Herrero massacre."
5. Plainly Dr Lushaba does not think the Herrero massacre was ok.
Or that it should be minimised.
His point is that political science and/or law is flawed if it theorises the Holocaust as a crime but does not criminalise the Herrero massacre.
Or that it should be minimised.
His point is that political science and/or law is flawed if it theorises the Holocaust as a crime but does not criminalise the Herrero massacre.
6. If @Our_DA or @helenzille disagree with Dr Lushaba, that is their right. I certainly don't agree with everything in the lecture.
Instead they seek Dr Lushaba's cancellation.
Wrongly.
This from people who hold themselves out as saviours from 'cancel culture'
Instead they seek Dr Lushaba's cancellation.
Wrongly.
This from people who hold themselves out as saviours from 'cancel culture'
7. The Holocaust was evil.
The Herrero massacre was evil.
To say both of these things at the same time is not to advocate for the extermination of white people.
Nor is it to justify or minimise the Holocaust.
The Herrero massacre was evil.
To say both of these things at the same time is not to advocate for the extermination of white people.
Nor is it to justify or minimise the Holocaust.
8. Some of the defences of Dr Lushaba minimise the Holocaust.
These must be rejected with contempt.
They are disgusting.
But it is completely unfair to blame Dr Lushaba for the evil spoken by his defenders.
These must be rejected with contempt.
They are disgusting.
But it is completely unfair to blame Dr Lushaba for the evil spoken by his defenders.
9. All that said, here is the full lecture.
Form your own view.
Agree.
Disagree.
But please give Dr Lushaba the courtesy of listening to more than 12 seconds before you cancel him.
Form your own view.
Agree.
Disagree.
But please give Dr Lushaba the courtesy of listening to more than 12 seconds before you cancel him.
