By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 22 August 2008
I picked up a copy of New African for the first time in August 2004 at the Johannesburg International Airport (now OR Tambo International) in South Africa on my way to the United States to attend the 2004 National Republican Convention in New York City as part of a group of Southern African university students. Since then, I never missed a copy. And, every single month, New African never disappoints.
I therefore consider myself a member of the New African family and, as a result, I take it as my responsibility to join New African in its search for the truth. I am particularly pressed to respond to two recent (and much related) issues as covered in New African’s June/July and July/August issues: one about Western media bias and another about the outbreak of xenophobic attacks in South Africa .
For a very long time now, the media in South Africa has been engaged in a campaign to degrade immigrants of African decent and Africans in general, including Africans from the diasbora and black South Africans themselves. In particular, Nigerians, Zimbabweans and Mozambicans have (and continue) to be the biggest targets.
Like other nationals, Nigerians are not saints, but their indiscriminate portrayal as drug lords is extremely unfair. There is no evidence that Nigerians are solely responsible for drug trafficking. In fact, some of the biggest drug busts at the OR Tambo International and other points of entry into South Africa did not involve Nigerians. It is only when an African is involved in an alleged criminal offence that the nationality of suspects becomes an issue.
Very recently, in mid-August, a popular (and apparently ‘black’) South African daily newspaper carried the story of a black female suspected of having orchestrated the murder of her husband. The article ridiculed the “cheap” and “fake Nigerian” clothes that the woman wears on her court appearances.
We also have people wearing cheap Chinese, Indian and even second-hand European clothes, but don’t expect the newspaper to pour the same scorn on non-Africans. It’s seemingly not on their agenda.
It is extremely unfortunate that black newspaper editors are contributing to what Dr. Edward Rhymes called “the continuing miseducation of the Negro”. Dr. Rhymes decries “our disturbing tendency to demonize ourselves” and our willingness as a race to accept derogatory titles; yet, today, in 2008, we are still promoting negative perceptions about Africans and their products and, in the process, fuelling xenophobia/Afro-phobia.
We have no shoulder to lean on because some of the people who are supposed to promote peace, reconciliation and African brotherhood – our fellow black newspapers editors – seem to be on the other side of the battle line, throwing missiles at their own people. How are we going to do away with xenophobia when people are taught, through the media, on a daily basis, that we must not wear clothes made by Nigerians because they are fake and cheap?
Some Africans amongst us are doing exactly what Franz Fanon warned against some decades ago, in 1961. Fanon cautioned in his seminal book, The Wretched of the Earth: “It so happens that the unpreparedness of the educated classes, the lack of practical links between them and the mass of the people, their laziness, and, let it be said, their cowardice at the decisive moment of the struggle, will give rise to tragic mishaps.” Today, in South Africa , we are witnessing one of those “tragic mishaps” (the alarming rate of xenophobia/Afro-phobia). The educated and the powerful amongst us are playing a very destructive role.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Will a black politician advance white interests?
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 20 August 2008
In Polokwane, where I live, the Democratic Alliance (DA) has distributed what appear to be early election posters declaring "war on drugs", "war on crime", etc on major streets.
Even in my small home town of Jane Furse, the DA's election campaign is already in full swing. Posters are visible throughout the major streets.
The DA has not yet officially revealed their theme for the 2009 general elections, but - based on the posters already hung up on lamp posts around cities and towns - one gets a feeling that the opposition party will set its theme around the need to protect South Africa's constitutional democracy by defending the independence of the judiciary.
With complicated court cases involving its president, Jacob Zuma, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) may focus mainly on broader access to economic opportunities, better access to education and more social relief for the poor.
The other smaller parties will find it difficult to make their policies known to the electorate due to various reasons, such as lack of financial resources, poor organisational planning and internal power struggles. Such parties include the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) and the Azanian People's Organisation (AZAPO).
As in previous democratic elections, to most of the voters, the elections next year will be an either/or affair; either the ruling ANC or the opposition DA. The minority will vote for the smaller opposition parties, but that is not necessarily a waste.
Because we still vote along racial lines, it is already generally accepted that the ANC will emerge victorious. Since democracy means majority rule, and since, in our country, we still associate along racial lines, the majority will always triumph over the minorities regardless of policy positions or the credibility of those in political leadership.
In its current makeup, the DA and its members and supporters will have to live with majority rule for decades to come. I do not see why blacks would entrust a white person (regardless of policies) with the power to rule South Africa. The memories of racism under apartheid are still fresh in their minds.
The DA will only succeed in wooing black voters if it can groom a black leader who is ready to advance white interests as is the case in the United States, where Barack Obama is being supported by whites, mainly because of his seemingly pro-white choices, such as his support for Israel.
The question now is: who amongst South Africa's emerging black politicians will be willing to oppose Black Economic Empowerment, Affirmative Action and African solidarity? Who is willing to be seen as a "sell out"?
In Polokwane, where I live, the Democratic Alliance (DA) has distributed what appear to be early election posters declaring "war on drugs", "war on crime", etc on major streets.
Even in my small home town of Jane Furse, the DA's election campaign is already in full swing. Posters are visible throughout the major streets.
The DA has not yet officially revealed their theme for the 2009 general elections, but - based on the posters already hung up on lamp posts around cities and towns - one gets a feeling that the opposition party will set its theme around the need to protect South Africa's constitutional democracy by defending the independence of the judiciary.
With complicated court cases involving its president, Jacob Zuma, the ruling African National Congress (ANC) may focus mainly on broader access to economic opportunities, better access to education and more social relief for the poor.
The other smaller parties will find it difficult to make their policies known to the electorate due to various reasons, such as lack of financial resources, poor organisational planning and internal power struggles. Such parties include the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) and the Azanian People's Organisation (AZAPO).
As in previous democratic elections, to most of the voters, the elections next year will be an either/or affair; either the ruling ANC or the opposition DA. The minority will vote for the smaller opposition parties, but that is not necessarily a waste.
Because we still vote along racial lines, it is already generally accepted that the ANC will emerge victorious. Since democracy means majority rule, and since, in our country, we still associate along racial lines, the majority will always triumph over the minorities regardless of policy positions or the credibility of those in political leadership.
In its current makeup, the DA and its members and supporters will have to live with majority rule for decades to come. I do not see why blacks would entrust a white person (regardless of policies) with the power to rule South Africa. The memories of racism under apartheid are still fresh in their minds.
The DA will only succeed in wooing black voters if it can groom a black leader who is ready to advance white interests as is the case in the United States, where Barack Obama is being supported by whites, mainly because of his seemingly pro-white choices, such as his support for Israel.
The question now is: who amongst South Africa's emerging black politicians will be willing to oppose Black Economic Empowerment, Affirmative Action and African solidarity? Who is willing to be seen as a "sell out"?
Monday, August 11, 2008
Tourism industry violates workers' rights
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 11 August 2008
We have less than 24 months before the start of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa; and the local tourism industry will undoubtedly be the biggest beneficiary of this historic event. Hotels, guest houses, bed-and-breakfast outlets and travel agencies will pocket the biggest share of the profit generated through the event.
Speaking in Germany during a ceremony to unveil the emblem for South Africa's 2010 FIFA World Cup in July 2006, President Thabo Mbeki invited “football fans of the world to journey to a tourist paradise across our magnificent continent of Africa”, adding that the World Cup “will stand out as a unique event that celebrates Africa in all its magnificent splendour, richness, vibrancy, diversity and glory.”
As a witness to tireless efforts by ordinary South Africans to ensure that the World Cup succeeds, I have no doubt about our ability as a country to host a successful event come 2010. South African workers around the country work literally around the clock to ensure that our stadiums, roads, water, electricity systems meet FIFA and the world’s high expectations.
My biggest fear, however, is that some in the tourism industry will use the historic 2010 FIFA World Cup as a get-rich-quick scheme at the expense of their hard-working employees, most of whom are poor African women. To these exploited workers, 2010 will mean longer working hours because of the high volume of tourists. At the end of it all, they will remain poor whilst their employers become richer.
During my recent stay at a popular resort in the North West province, I witnessed some shameful exploitation of workers in the tourism industry. One worker told me how he works from 6am till 10pm everyday, six days a week. That is a 16-hour working day – two times the average 8-hour day! For this, he gets a R1500 per month salary. No medical aid; no pension fund; no overtime compensation, no trade union affiliation.
Under these circumstances, government needs to intervene by conducting a massive audit to check compliance to labour law in the tourism industry. In our hotels, guest houses, lodges and other tourism outlets, the audit will uncover unprecedented violations of the rights of South African workers. Government would then blackmail wrongdoers so that they do not benefit from the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
As a country, we cannot continue to pride ourselves of being “a tourist paradise” whilst this paradise triumphs at the expense of our fellow poor South Africans.
We have less than 24 months before the start of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa; and the local tourism industry will undoubtedly be the biggest beneficiary of this historic event. Hotels, guest houses, bed-and-breakfast outlets and travel agencies will pocket the biggest share of the profit generated through the event.
Speaking in Germany during a ceremony to unveil the emblem for South Africa's 2010 FIFA World Cup in July 2006, President Thabo Mbeki invited “football fans of the world to journey to a tourist paradise across our magnificent continent of Africa”, adding that the World Cup “will stand out as a unique event that celebrates Africa in all its magnificent splendour, richness, vibrancy, diversity and glory.”
As a witness to tireless efforts by ordinary South Africans to ensure that the World Cup succeeds, I have no doubt about our ability as a country to host a successful event come 2010. South African workers around the country work literally around the clock to ensure that our stadiums, roads, water, electricity systems meet FIFA and the world’s high expectations.
My biggest fear, however, is that some in the tourism industry will use the historic 2010 FIFA World Cup as a get-rich-quick scheme at the expense of their hard-working employees, most of whom are poor African women. To these exploited workers, 2010 will mean longer working hours because of the high volume of tourists. At the end of it all, they will remain poor whilst their employers become richer.
During my recent stay at a popular resort in the North West province, I witnessed some shameful exploitation of workers in the tourism industry. One worker told me how he works from 6am till 10pm everyday, six days a week. That is a 16-hour working day – two times the average 8-hour day! For this, he gets a R1500 per month salary. No medical aid; no pension fund; no overtime compensation, no trade union affiliation.
Under these circumstances, government needs to intervene by conducting a massive audit to check compliance to labour law in the tourism industry. In our hotels, guest houses, lodges and other tourism outlets, the audit will uncover unprecedented violations of the rights of South African workers. Government would then blackmail wrongdoers so that they do not benefit from the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
As a country, we cannot continue to pride ourselves of being “a tourist paradise” whilst this paradise triumphs at the expense of our fellow poor South Africans.
Monday, August 4, 2008
The likes of Mugabe impede 'Imperial Grand Strategy'
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 04 August 2008
In one of his brilliant books, Hegemony or Survival: America’s quest for global dominance, author Noam Chomsky exposes America’s “grand imperial strategy”, which, he says, is aimed at ensuring America’s permanent dominance of the global political and economic landscape.
Chomsky says the aim of the “imperial grand strategy”, designed in 2002, is to “seek to construct a world system open to US economic penetration and political control, tolerating no rivals or threats.”
According to Chomsky: “A crucial corollary [of the strategy] is vigilance to block any moves toward independent development that might become a ‘virus infecting others’.” In other words, efforts by small or poor countries to inspire economic independence from the US must be blocked.
Another dominant player in global politics and economics is Europe , which had its equivalent to the “imperial grand strategy” in the form of the slave trade during the early years of the colonial period.
Walter Rodney, in his book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, details Europe ’s power to make unilateral decisions within the international trading system. “An excellent illustration of that,” writes Rodney, “is the fact that the so-called international law which governed the conduct of nations on the high seas was nothing else but European law.”
Rodney notes that: “Africans did not participate in [the] making [of this international law], and in many instances African people were simply the victims, for the law recognised them only as transportable merchandise.”
Things should be different today because the whole of Africa is independent; but, unfortunately, Africa ’s political freedom has not brought much change to ordinary Africans. In many instances, Africans are poorer than they were in the colonial period.
Some will blame Africa ’s present-day socio-economic situation on corruption by the political elite, forgetting that, in every corrupt transaction, there is the corruptor and the corrupted. Not much is said about the fact that many of Africa’s stolen assets are stored in foreign banks in so-called modern democratic states, mostly in Europe .
It is only when they refuse to cooperate in campaigns aimed at advancing the “imperial grand strategy” that members of Africa ’s political elite invite upon themselves the heavy hand of the self-appointed guardians of “international law.”
The Zimbabwean situation is hard to ignore. President Robert Mugabe was the darling of the West when he ensured that former Prime Minister Ian Smith is not prosecuted for previous atrocities committed under his leadership and when he made sure that white farmers maintain property rights to Zimbabwean land.
It is only when he started to roll out the controversial land reform policy that Mugabe irked the West. Before the land reform programme, no one seemed to demand justice for the victims of the Matebeleland massacre. The West was too busy conferring unsolicited honourary degrees and doctorates to the Zimbabwean leader.
In one of his brilliant books, Hegemony or Survival: America’s quest for global dominance, author Noam Chomsky exposes America’s “grand imperial strategy”, which, he says, is aimed at ensuring America’s permanent dominance of the global political and economic landscape.
Chomsky says the aim of the “imperial grand strategy”, designed in 2002, is to “seek to construct a world system open to US economic penetration and political control, tolerating no rivals or threats.”
According to Chomsky: “A crucial corollary [of the strategy] is vigilance to block any moves toward independent development that might become a ‘virus infecting others’.” In other words, efforts by small or poor countries to inspire economic independence from the US must be blocked.
Another dominant player in global politics and economics is Europe , which had its equivalent to the “imperial grand strategy” in the form of the slave trade during the early years of the colonial period.
Walter Rodney, in his book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, details Europe ’s power to make unilateral decisions within the international trading system. “An excellent illustration of that,” writes Rodney, “is the fact that the so-called international law which governed the conduct of nations on the high seas was nothing else but European law.”
Rodney notes that: “Africans did not participate in [the] making [of this international law], and in many instances African people were simply the victims, for the law recognised them only as transportable merchandise.”
Things should be different today because the whole of Africa is independent; but, unfortunately, Africa ’s political freedom has not brought much change to ordinary Africans. In many instances, Africans are poorer than they were in the colonial period.
Some will blame Africa ’s present-day socio-economic situation on corruption by the political elite, forgetting that, in every corrupt transaction, there is the corruptor and the corrupted. Not much is said about the fact that many of Africa’s stolen assets are stored in foreign banks in so-called modern democratic states, mostly in Europe .
It is only when they refuse to cooperate in campaigns aimed at advancing the “imperial grand strategy” that members of Africa ’s political elite invite upon themselves the heavy hand of the self-appointed guardians of “international law.”
The Zimbabwean situation is hard to ignore. President Robert Mugabe was the darling of the West when he ensured that former Prime Minister Ian Smith is not prosecuted for previous atrocities committed under his leadership and when he made sure that white farmers maintain property rights to Zimbabwean land.
It is only when he started to roll out the controversial land reform policy that Mugabe irked the West. Before the land reform programme, no one seemed to demand justice for the victims of the Matebeleland massacre. The West was too busy conferring unsolicited honourary degrees and doctorates to the Zimbabwean leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
