Like some heads of state facing sanctions from the US government, Mugabe delivers a tirade aimed at further discrediting Bush
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 27 September 2007
At the recent sitting of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe literally breathed fire, accusing (with unusual bravery) the President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, of “rank hypocrisy”.
Mugabe further accused Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his [Blair’s] successor, Gordon Brown, for thinking that their “sense of human rights precludes our people's right to their God-given resources, which in their view must be controlled by their kith and kin.”
Mugabe’s outburst was not unexpected, though.
Merely days before his address at the UN, Brown threatened to boycott the European Union-Africa Summit if Mugabe attends, arguing that Mugabe’s presence at the summit will divert attention from important agenda items.
Like his Venezuelan counterpart, Hugo Chavez, a year before at the same podium in the UN General Assembly, Mugabe had Bush as his prime target – and, because his country has nothing to lose in lambasting the US, Mugabe was not going to mince his words.
Amongst other things, Mugabe told the General Assembly: “[Bush] imprisons and tortures at Guantanamo. He imprisoned and tortured at Abu Ghraib. He has secret torture chambers in Europe. Take Guantanamo for example; at that concentration camp international law does not apply. The national laws of the people there do not apply. Laws of the United States of America do not apply. Only Bush's law applies.”
Speaking at the UN General Assembly a day after Bush’s address last September, outspoken Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called Bush “the devil”, adding: “Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world.”
So sarcastic was Chavez that he even suggested to the packed General Assembly that a psychiatrist be called “to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States”.
Chavez went on to call Bush “the spokesman of imperialism” who went to the UN “to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.”
Harsh criticism of the US through the General Assembly is not new.
In 1960, Cuban President Fidel Castro delivered a long tirade at the UN, mainly accusing the US government of forcing its will upon smaller states such as his. Castro lambasted the US and other permanent members of the UN Security Council for holding on to undemocratic seats.
Castro described then US President John F. Kennedy as “an illiterate and ignorant millionaire” who does not understand that it is impossible “to carry out a revolution supported by landowners against the peasant in the mountains, and that every time imperialism has tried to encourage counterrevolutionary groups, the peasant militia has captured them in the course of a few days.”
Kennedy, as Castro claimed, “seems to have read a novel, or seen a Hollywood film, about guerrillas, and he thinks it is possible to carry on guerrilla warfare in a country where the relations of the social forces are what they are in Cuba.”
For a long time in international politics, the UN General Assembly has served as a platform from which the leaders of countries under US sanctions could launch verbal counter-offensives. With varying degrees of success, the verbal counter-offensives serve to discredit the US and her leaders.
Sources:
1. President Robert Mugabe’s address at the UN General Assembly, 2007
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/un34.16973.html
2. President Hugo Chavez’s address at the UN General Assembly, 2006
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/20/123752.shtml
3. President Fidel Castro’s address at the UN General Assembly, 1960
http://www.school-for-champions.com/speeches/castro_un_1960_3.htm
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Are you concerned about 'animal cruelty'?
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 21 September 2007
1. Introduction
Readres of the daily right-wing newspaper, The Citizen, won't let me get away with accusing them of being concerned more about cruelty to animals than cruelty to black people.
Published below is the letter I wrote to the right-wing newspaper, followed by the readers' responses -- also published by The Citizen.
2. My letter, as published by The Citizen on 10 Sept. 2007
THERE is one thing I can’t figure out among many readers of The Citizen – and I would like honest answers to this.
These readers are very concerned about cruelty to animals, but they keep silent when cruelty is unleashed against human beings – particularly when the perpetrator is white and the victim is black.
How dare you express outrage when a dog is injured and keep mum when a white farmer shoots his employee and argues that he mistook him for a dog, for example?
Is the life of a dog more important than the life of a black person in a country where the majority of the population is black?
3. Readers' responses
3.1. Animal abuse is worse
Madibeng Kgwete, there is no excuse for shooting anyone, no matter what their colour. “Mistook him for a dog” is a lot of hogwash. But anyone who mistreats animals is worse. Remember how outraged the public were with the fireworks issue, blowing dogs’ rectums to pieces? If you abuse animals you should be treated the same. A murderer should be given a death sentence. –BRIAN (Johannesburg)
3.2. And farm murders?
Your story is so typical of the worn-out, one-sided, racist mindset that black people love to display. I say how dare you express outrage at readers showing more concern about cruelty to animals than to blacks? But in turn you have remained silent on the cruel murders black perpetrators commit on white farmers each day. Maybe you feel they deserve it, and maybe the whites siding with the plight of animals feel so too. -- REALIST (Brackenhurst)
1. Introduction
Readres of the daily right-wing newspaper, The Citizen, won't let me get away with accusing them of being concerned more about cruelty to animals than cruelty to black people.
Published below is the letter I wrote to the right-wing newspaper, followed by the readers' responses -- also published by The Citizen.
2. My letter, as published by The Citizen on 10 Sept. 2007
THERE is one thing I can’t figure out among many readers of The Citizen – and I would like honest answers to this.
These readers are very concerned about cruelty to animals, but they keep silent when cruelty is unleashed against human beings – particularly when the perpetrator is white and the victim is black.
How dare you express outrage when a dog is injured and keep mum when a white farmer shoots his employee and argues that he mistook him for a dog, for example?
Is the life of a dog more important than the life of a black person in a country where the majority of the population is black?
3. Readers' responses
3.1. Animal abuse is worse
Madibeng Kgwete, there is no excuse for shooting anyone, no matter what their colour. “Mistook him for a dog” is a lot of hogwash. But anyone who mistreats animals is worse. Remember how outraged the public were with the fireworks issue, blowing dogs’ rectums to pieces? If you abuse animals you should be treated the same. A murderer should be given a death sentence. –BRIAN (Johannesburg)
3.2. And farm murders?
Your story is so typical of the worn-out, one-sided, racist mindset that black people love to display. I say how dare you express outrage at readers showing more concern about cruelty to animals than to blacks? But in turn you have remained silent on the cruel murders black perpetrators commit on white farmers each day. Maybe you feel they deserve it, and maybe the whites siding with the plight of animals feel so too. -- REALIST (Brackenhurst)
Thursday, September 13, 2007
To be honest, we've dumped Biko’s philosophy
The same black people who go around preaching “Black Consciousness” have deserted their indigenous African languages. They are proud that their kids can't speak any language other than English!
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 September 2007
Perhaps the saddest thing about the celebrations marking the 30th Anniversary of the death of the leader of the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), Steven Bantu Biko, is that they coincide with a period in which blacks are becoming their own greatest enemies.
In Biko’s own words: “We do not want to be reminded that it is we, the indigenous people, who are poor and exploited in the land of our birth. These are concepts which the Black Consciousness approach wishes to eradicate from the black man's mind before our society is driven to chaos by irresponsible people from Coca-cola and hamburger cultural backgrounds."
Today, 13 short years after the attainment of freedom and democracy in South Africa, “the irresponsible people from Coca-cola and hamburger cultural backgrounds” have had the upper hand. Black people are proud when their children cannot speak a single African indigenous language. Speaking English is the new measure of wisdom!
To be honest, we black people in the new South Africa – including those in Biko’s movement, the Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO) – have dumped Biko’s philosophy of black consciousness. Talk about being black and proud and you’ll be called a “counter-racist” that is unappreciative of Nelson Mandela’s great reconciliation efforts.
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 September 2007
Perhaps the saddest thing about the celebrations marking the 30th Anniversary of the death of the leader of the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), Steven Bantu Biko, is that they coincide with a period in which blacks are becoming their own greatest enemies.
In Biko’s own words: “We do not want to be reminded that it is we, the indigenous people, who are poor and exploited in the land of our birth. These are concepts which the Black Consciousness approach wishes to eradicate from the black man's mind before our society is driven to chaos by irresponsible people from Coca-cola and hamburger cultural backgrounds."
Today, 13 short years after the attainment of freedom and democracy in South Africa, “the irresponsible people from Coca-cola and hamburger cultural backgrounds” have had the upper hand. Black people are proud when their children cannot speak a single African indigenous language. Speaking English is the new measure of wisdom!
To be honest, we black people in the new South Africa – including those in Biko’s movement, the Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO) – have dumped Biko’s philosophy of black consciousness. Talk about being black and proud and you’ll be called a “counter-racist” that is unappreciative of Nelson Mandela’s great reconciliation efforts.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Name-changes: where do you stand?
A refined copy of my article, "The lobby opposed to name-changed is deceitful”, (posted here on Pro-Africa Analysis 04 September 2007 and published on the News24 website on 06 September 2007) attracted a wide range of responses. The following are some of the responses as they appeared below my article, 'Don’t delay name-changes’:
1. Those who agree with me on name-changes say …
1.1. At first when I heard of name changes I thought what a waste of time, but when u take a harder look I think it needs to be done. We take our street names for granted, not understanding the significance, eg Durbans Smith, West,Russell,Grey streets, they are all named after apartheid contributors,we need names that is relevant to South Africans,our history, & struggle which takes contributions of all races into consideration. – ayesha
1.2. Very well said, Madibeng. I've always found it ironic that people opposed to name-change, those who argue that it is a waste of time are invariably not black Africans, invariably middle-class. One wonders why they shout so loudly for "service delivery" ostensibly in the name of the poor. altruism? I think not – me
1.3. Never thought it that way. But you are right. Name change is indeed a delivery issue. People's dignity is so important that if you look through the history of human kind where there was an oppressor, their names have been removed because of the insulting connotation it carries. There is a reason why Hitler street is not to be found in Germany, Israel or even the USA. Influence of Mussolini in Italy is limited. India has adopted native names for their cities. Well written and well said. I am poor and want change - Len v Heerden
1.4. Viva Name Changes: It's the only way forward. Viva to name changes. Amazing how white folks suddenly become aware of service deliveries. It's like their senses have resurrected after centuries of hibernation throughout colonialism & apartheid. During which they became deaf and blind to other peoples sufferings. – VivaNameChange
1.5. I think what Madibeng is trying to say, and I take the writer's point, is that whether we change the names or not, it will not affect the service delivery in other areas. There wont be more manpower or more money for introducing running water if we decide not to re-name streets as other departments have their own inept people and the same budget regardless. Bit of perspective please. – Johno
1.6. Even though I am dead against name changes (yes, as a White Afrikaner), I find Madibeng's argument well-written and cannot fault his logic. As I see it, he does not advocate name changes IN STEAD of service delivery, but rather as PART OF it. Right? - cedb00
2. And those who disagree with me say …
2.1. Pride and identity: Yeah right, the poor need pride and identity. Maybe you have a place to sleep tonite and a full stomach when you do so, maybe you should sit without a job for a year, sleep on newspaper in a shack, eat whatever you can swallow .... then tell me about prie and identity. When do you want to start changing the name of Mercedes Benz and BMW, when do you want to start changing the nams of all the planets? Grow up and get positive, get real, start seriously providing a life for the poor. - Blah blah
2.2. How far do you want to go back? Mr Kgwete You end your letter with: "Are we forgetting our pre-colonial history?" Might I remind you that you are very selective in when the pre-colonial timeline starts. Scientific evidence have proven that first Homo sapiens in South Africa where the Khoi and San people. All the so-called black Africans migrated from central Africa. So why don't we allow the Khoi and San people to lay claim to all their land and name all the places? Or are we forgetting our pre-migration history? – Jonix
2.3. Easy to sit in the lap of luxury and speak on behalf of the homeless masses isn't it Madibeng. Take an opinion poll and see if the people want houses and infrastructure or new name sign boards. They care not for the quotes of Franz Fanon. – Tubz
2.4. Im sure if you ask a poor person if they want their town to be renamed or whether they would like clean running water or electricity, they would choose the latter. Lets get our priorities straight, then we can change then names to whatever we want. – JB
2.5. Have you lost it??? People die daily in SA because of a lack of nutrition, water and shelter. Who died of living in a city where the name is not to their liking??? Does your fellow South Africans mean so little to you that you would rather see them perish in a newly named city instead of having a fighting chance. Your attitude towards this country and it's citizens make me sick! Get lost. – Johan
2.6. I'm sorry, service delivery does not include name changes; i fail to see how this will benefit anyone living without proper sanitation. Madibeng you fail to realise or maybe don't want to realise that european people also played a part in forming what South Africa is today, so when you change names you are also stripping them of their heritage. Some names should be changed but not on the scale government is doing it...its a free for all. We all want to be proud of OUR COUNTRY. – Trevor
2.7. Madibeng, you make some good points, or at least get your appoint across quite clearly so i assume you're an intellectual. Well, tell me this: how does changing a place's name feed the hungry in that area, educate the children, care for the sick, develop the economy? Pride doesn't provide! Is wanting to provide the basic necessities being materialistic? What world do you really come from? – Gareth
2.8. So are you saying spending millions on changing names is far more important than addressing poverty, feeding the hungry and taking care of aids orphans, Madibeng? Get real! So a name changes, then what??? Big deal! Find some other frivolous thing to spend money on, while the underpriveledged are STILL out there starving??? You are hilarious! – Mike
2.9. I gather from the fact that the author has internet access, from his wide reading and his use of complicated words that he is quite well off. Yet he comments that name change is just as important as service delivery. He should tell that to the people in Protea South. They are most certainly not throwing rocks at journalists and setting fire to a councillor's house because they demand name changes to be made! – Dewald
1. Those who agree with me on name-changes say …
1.1. At first when I heard of name changes I thought what a waste of time, but when u take a harder look I think it needs to be done. We take our street names for granted, not understanding the significance, eg Durbans Smith, West,Russell,Grey streets, they are all named after apartheid contributors,we need names that is relevant to South Africans,our history, & struggle which takes contributions of all races into consideration. – ayesha
1.2. Very well said, Madibeng. I've always found it ironic that people opposed to name-change, those who argue that it is a waste of time are invariably not black Africans, invariably middle-class. One wonders why they shout so loudly for "service delivery" ostensibly in the name of the poor. altruism? I think not – me
1.3. Never thought it that way. But you are right. Name change is indeed a delivery issue. People's dignity is so important that if you look through the history of human kind where there was an oppressor, their names have been removed because of the insulting connotation it carries. There is a reason why Hitler street is not to be found in Germany, Israel or even the USA. Influence of Mussolini in Italy is limited. India has adopted native names for their cities. Well written and well said. I am poor and want change - Len v Heerden
1.4. Viva Name Changes: It's the only way forward. Viva to name changes. Amazing how white folks suddenly become aware of service deliveries. It's like their senses have resurrected after centuries of hibernation throughout colonialism & apartheid. During which they became deaf and blind to other peoples sufferings. – VivaNameChange
1.5. I think what Madibeng is trying to say, and I take the writer's point, is that whether we change the names or not, it will not affect the service delivery in other areas. There wont be more manpower or more money for introducing running water if we decide not to re-name streets as other departments have their own inept people and the same budget regardless. Bit of perspective please. – Johno
1.6. Even though I am dead against name changes (yes, as a White Afrikaner), I find Madibeng's argument well-written and cannot fault his logic. As I see it, he does not advocate name changes IN STEAD of service delivery, but rather as PART OF it. Right? - cedb00
2. And those who disagree with me say …
2.1. Pride and identity: Yeah right, the poor need pride and identity. Maybe you have a place to sleep tonite and a full stomach when you do so, maybe you should sit without a job for a year, sleep on newspaper in a shack, eat whatever you can swallow .... then tell me about prie and identity. When do you want to start changing the name of Mercedes Benz and BMW, when do you want to start changing the nams of all the planets? Grow up and get positive, get real, start seriously providing a life for the poor. - Blah blah
2.2. How far do you want to go back? Mr Kgwete You end your letter with: "Are we forgetting our pre-colonial history?" Might I remind you that you are very selective in when the pre-colonial timeline starts. Scientific evidence have proven that first Homo sapiens in South Africa where the Khoi and San people. All the so-called black Africans migrated from central Africa. So why don't we allow the Khoi and San people to lay claim to all their land and name all the places? Or are we forgetting our pre-migration history? – Jonix
2.3. Easy to sit in the lap of luxury and speak on behalf of the homeless masses isn't it Madibeng. Take an opinion poll and see if the people want houses and infrastructure or new name sign boards. They care not for the quotes of Franz Fanon. – Tubz
2.4. Im sure if you ask a poor person if they want their town to be renamed or whether they would like clean running water or electricity, they would choose the latter. Lets get our priorities straight, then we can change then names to whatever we want. – JB
2.5. Have you lost it??? People die daily in SA because of a lack of nutrition, water and shelter. Who died of living in a city where the name is not to their liking??? Does your fellow South Africans mean so little to you that you would rather see them perish in a newly named city instead of having a fighting chance. Your attitude towards this country and it's citizens make me sick! Get lost. – Johan
2.6. I'm sorry, service delivery does not include name changes; i fail to see how this will benefit anyone living without proper sanitation. Madibeng you fail to realise or maybe don't want to realise that european people also played a part in forming what South Africa is today, so when you change names you are also stripping them of their heritage. Some names should be changed but not on the scale government is doing it...its a free for all. We all want to be proud of OUR COUNTRY. – Trevor
2.7. Madibeng, you make some good points, or at least get your appoint across quite clearly so i assume you're an intellectual. Well, tell me this: how does changing a place's name feed the hungry in that area, educate the children, care for the sick, develop the economy? Pride doesn't provide! Is wanting to provide the basic necessities being materialistic? What world do you really come from? – Gareth
2.8. So are you saying spending millions on changing names is far more important than addressing poverty, feeding the hungry and taking care of aids orphans, Madibeng? Get real! So a name changes, then what??? Big deal! Find some other frivolous thing to spend money on, while the underpriveledged are STILL out there starving??? You are hilarious! – Mike
2.9. I gather from the fact that the author has internet access, from his wide reading and his use of complicated words that he is quite well off. Yet he comments that name change is just as important as service delivery. He should tell that to the people in Protea South. They are most certainly not throwing rocks at journalists and setting fire to a councillor's house because they demand name changes to be made! – Dewald
- Please visit the following link for the whole debate: http://www.news24.com/News24/MyNews24/Letters/0,,2-2127-2129_2178406,00.html
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
The lobby opposed to name-changes is deceitful
The name-change process is also a service delivery matter. Those who delay it are just as bad as those who delay the delivery of houses, roads, water and electricity.
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 04 August 2007
In the letter, “We need more service than we need names” (The Star, 04 September 2007), Howard Drakes suggests that government must stop worrying about changing names and concentrate on “addressing service delivery backlogs (housing, roads, water and electricity), job creation, youth development, education, crime, etc”.
A few paragraphs down the same article, Drakes contradicts himself thus: “The issue of name changes is ultimately a political one. It is a matter of how we write and remember history. The history books in this case, however, are being written by the hands of the elite, on both sides of the name-change divide”.
Drakes ignores the fact that the sensitive name-change process is also a service delivery matter and that those who delay it are just as bad as those who delay the delivery of houses, roads, water and electricity. Non-delivery in the changing of apartheid and colonial names is no better than non-delivery of any other service.
Much as they need houses, roads, water and electricity, the poor people of our country also have pride and identity. The notion that all of poor people’s needs are material is nothing but deceit. And there should be no excuse for putting the name-change process on hold, for this process seeks to reclaim the rich culture of the natives.
Of the importance of culture, Franz Fanon wrote in his essay, Reciprocal Bases of National Culture and the Fight for Freedom, that, “in the colonial [one can also add apartheid] situation, dynamism is replaced fairly quickly by a substantification of the attitudes of the colonising power. The area of culture is then marked off by fences and signposts”.
Fanon went further thus: “While the mass of the people maintain intact traditions which are completely different from those of the colonial situation … the intellectual throws himself in frenzied fashion into the frantic acquisition of the culture of the occupying power and takes every opportunity of unfavourably criticising his own national culture”.
Consciously or otherwise, the lobby opposed to name-changes in South Africa is working tirelessly – ostensibly in the name of better service delivery and saving taxpayers’ money – to shift focus from the need to change what Fanon correctly described as the “culture of the occupying power”.
Those opposed to name-changes must read Fanon, for he correctly observes that: “The struggle for freedom, which aims at a fundamentally different set of relations between men, cannot leave intact either the form or the content of the people's culture. After the conflict, there is not only the disappearance of colonialism but also the disappearance of the colonised man”.
In South Africa ’s case, the scars the people bear from colonial and apartheid battles are slowly disappearing, but the “colonised man” will live on for as long as he resides in a country that can easily be mistaken for a European outpost because of its foreign names and culture.
What we should be worried about is the fact that the name-change process is currently focusing too much on the naming of places after recent historical figures. We must ask ourselves: Are we forgetting our pre-colonial history? Are we underplaying the role of our heroic tribal kings who fought gun-wielding European occupiers with bows and arrows? Have we forgotten our ancestral roots?
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 04 August 2007
In the letter, “We need more service than we need names” (The Star, 04 September 2007), Howard Drakes suggests that government must stop worrying about changing names and concentrate on “addressing service delivery backlogs (housing, roads, water and electricity), job creation, youth development, education, crime, etc”.
A few paragraphs down the same article, Drakes contradicts himself thus: “The issue of name changes is ultimately a political one. It is a matter of how we write and remember history. The history books in this case, however, are being written by the hands of the elite, on both sides of the name-change divide”.
Drakes ignores the fact that the sensitive name-change process is also a service delivery matter and that those who delay it are just as bad as those who delay the delivery of houses, roads, water and electricity. Non-delivery in the changing of apartheid and colonial names is no better than non-delivery of any other service.
Much as they need houses, roads, water and electricity, the poor people of our country also have pride and identity. The notion that all of poor people’s needs are material is nothing but deceit. And there should be no excuse for putting the name-change process on hold, for this process seeks to reclaim the rich culture of the natives.
Of the importance of culture, Franz Fanon wrote in his essay, Reciprocal Bases of National Culture and the Fight for Freedom, that, “in the colonial [one can also add apartheid] situation, dynamism is replaced fairly quickly by a substantification of the attitudes of the colonising power. The area of culture is then marked off by fences and signposts”.
Fanon went further thus: “While the mass of the people maintain intact traditions which are completely different from those of the colonial situation … the intellectual throws himself in frenzied fashion into the frantic acquisition of the culture of the occupying power and takes every opportunity of unfavourably criticising his own national culture”.
Consciously or otherwise, the lobby opposed to name-changes in South Africa is working tirelessly – ostensibly in the name of better service delivery and saving taxpayers’ money – to shift focus from the need to change what Fanon correctly described as the “culture of the occupying power”.
Those opposed to name-changes must read Fanon, for he correctly observes that: “The struggle for freedom, which aims at a fundamentally different set of relations between men, cannot leave intact either the form or the content of the people's culture. After the conflict, there is not only the disappearance of colonialism but also the disappearance of the colonised man”.
In South Africa ’s case, the scars the people bear from colonial and apartheid battles are slowly disappearing, but the “colonised man” will live on for as long as he resides in a country that can easily be mistaken for a European outpost because of its foreign names and culture.
What we should be worried about is the fact that the name-change process is currently focusing too much on the naming of places after recent historical figures. We must ask ourselves: Are we forgetting our pre-colonial history? Are we underplaying the role of our heroic tribal kings who fought gun-wielding European occupiers with bows and arrows? Have we forgotten our ancestral roots?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
