Healing apartheid wounds

Why are we being urged to bury the past by people who are seemingly not willing to do likewise?

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 21 September 2009

The massive reaction to the News24 article by one Wayne G, "Our own Animal Farm" (16 September 2009), indicate two things to me: that South Africans not only want to debate the current state of race relations in the country, but also that they have a desire to know and understand each other.

Wayne speaks from the perspective of a frustrated white youth, and he raises a lot of questions and concerns that should not be ignored.

Amongst other things, Wayne blames the media for perpetuating racist stereotypes against whites, arguing that newspapers aggravate race relations “through their constant focus on the loud mouths of our country [such as Julius Malema, who exploit] our differences to sell papers.”

As a black youth myself, there are a number of factors that I wish the likes of Wayne took into consideration when analysing the state of racial integration (or lack thereof) in post-apartheid South Africa; and here’s what I wish we all start realising:

1. Trying to understand black people whilst constantly bashing the ANC is not a good start. After all, the ANC is credited within the black community for having liberated black people from the shackles of apartheid.

2. Needless to say, not all black South Africans support the ANC. In fact, the success of the official opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, is in part due to the massive support that the party received from a substantial pool of black voters across the country.

3. Many of us black South Africans see the reluctance by our white fellow citizens to learn our cultures (or at least to learn how to say “hello” in Sepedi, for example) as an emphatic rejection of our way of life. I know the argument against learning black languages. “They are not business languages, etc.”

Since when has the language of your fellow citizens been about business imperatives? It should be about curiosity and a desire to relate to your fellow South Africans in the language that they understand. You can come up with all reasons why you’re not going to learn to say “hi” in Sepedi, but my reading of such reasons can be summed up simply as belittling my culture.

4. As a black young South African, I also do not understand why I am constantly urged by my white fellow citizens to bury the apartheid past and move on. What do I have to do with apartheid? And why am I urged to forget the past by people who are seemingly not ready to do the same?

If I cannot date a white girl for no reason other than that I am black (and that, because I am black, I am presumed to be an idiot), why am I being urged to pretend that my white fellow citizens accept me for who I am and not what my skin pigmentation looks like?

5. Trying to demonise corrective interventions such as Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment with sweeping generalisations about the quality of black leadership in top positions also implants in me a sense of quilt. You assume that I am in the position that I am in solely because I am black.

In essence, you assume that, had it not been for AA and BEE, I would be holding up plackards at the traffic intersections, begging. I see this as a grave insult and a blatant undermining of my intellect and my potential.

Everything that does not work in government is because “skilled workers” (an indirect reference to whites) are being excluded through AA and BEE! Can’t there be other reasons? How did the apartheid government fare in its delivery of public services with all these “skilled” workers at its disposal?

NB: See Wayne G's article on the following link: http://www.news24.com/Content/MyNews24/YourStory/1162/2ec7164e9ae64a498ff14b2f7f4d5ad6/16-09-2009-02-08/Our_own_Animal_farm

Disguised advertising is deceitful

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 16 September 2009

When corporate power dictates how we narrate our daily life, deceit is sure to follow

Advertising is perhaps one of the most exciting industries; and South Africa is renowned worldwide as being amongst the leading creative hubs in as far as advertising is concerned. But there are certain aspects of advertising that border on dishonesty.

One evening, I watched the Venda television series, Muvhango, screened on SABC 2, and the type of advertising that is contained in the soapie, masquerading as parts of the soapie storyline, can mislead unsuspecting television audiences.

Somewhere along the episode, for example, the cast gets together in a room to discuss banking, and not only do they make reference to Capitec bank in favourable terms, large posters of the bank are also placed strategically at the background, and the soapie’s concealed endorsement of the bank is beyond question.

Sometime back, another popular SABC television series, Generations, used to have their cast get regular hair-dos, courtesy of Soft ‘n Free, also concealed as part of the soapie storyline.

There should be a clear distinction between honest and transparent advertising activity and a sincere storyline aimed at dramatising the realities of daily life, free from the pressures of corporate power. We don’t have ad breaks for nothing.

Any form of advertising activity that is contained in soapie storylines, for example, negates our creative spirit and is meant to deceit unsuspecting audiences. Real advertisers do not disguise their products as part and parcel of other people’s popular initiatives.

Let's ask new questions about 2010

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 08 September 2009

On Friday, 04 September, I attended the launch of the “Football Fridays” campaign at the South African Football Association (SAFA) House, south of Johannesburg – and it finally dawned on me that this world cup thing is actually coming our way.

The aim of the “Football Fridays” campaign is to encourage South Africans to wear football jerseys on Fridays and to learn the national anthem, fly the South African flag with pride and celebrate our country’s hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

Just being around the Soccer City area inspires confidence, particularly when you see the tremendous work done on the stadium and the broader precinct. The question is no longer whether or not we’ll be ready to host the event, but what kind of hosts we’ll be.

At the event, the CEO of the Local Organising Committee, Danny Jordan, spoke about the world cup as one of the several defining moments in the making of South Africa; others being the release from prison of Nelson Mandela in 1990, the first democratic general elections in 1994 and the rugby world cup in 1995.

The passion amongst the men and women working on South Africa’s preparations for the world cup, from the top executives to the men and women picking up pieces of litter around the stadiums, makes you proud to be a South African.

I know jealous people around the world, including those who originate from this country, continue to spread false rumours about our country; but those of us who live here know this country better. And some of these rumour-mongers cannot even point South Africa on the world map. I feel sorry for them.

We’re going to make history in 2010.

And, already, we are told that the Local Organising Committee has received applications from over 70 000 people from across the world who want to work as volunteers during the world cup. This is most certainly a resounding vote of confidence in South Africa.

We’re going to do this thing so well that the South African expatriate in London – or Moscow, or New York, or Montreal – wants to get on to the next available flight to Johannesburg, if only to be closer to the rhythm because, by then, all tickets would have sold out.

I know the national soccer team is not doing well on its preparations for the world cup, having recently suffered a 2-0 defeat over the weekend at the hands of Germany. But next year when we talk about the team, we’ll be talking about the broader South African citizenry and not just the 11 men on the soccer pitch.

Now that questions about our state of readiness have effectively become irrelevant, we must start debating a new question: how will the world look at us after the final game of the 2010 FIFA World Cup? Will they still look at us in the same way that they look at us now? What kind of picture will they have of South Africa?

NB: An edited version of this article was published on the City Press website under the headline, "Sekunjalo, SA's more than ready". See the article on this link: http://www.citypress.co.za/Content/MyCityPress/YourStory/2164/ef11554058704855b7478fa49c607b28/06-09-2009-12-15/Sekunjalo,_SA%E2%80%99s_more_than_ready

Bad news is good news -- and here's the proof

How strange that a winning story about tourism is one about a stinking motorcycle rider navigating his way through potholes and delays!

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 14 August 2009

If you were ever in doubt that, in the field of journalism, bad news is good news, you need not look any further than this year’s CNN MultiChoice African Journalist of the Year Awards.

All but three of the winners in the 16 individual categories entered stories about positive developments on the continent. The rest were stories of misery, poverty, war and underdevelopment.

In fact, even the winner in the tourism category was rewarded for putting together a piece about a bad-smelling Ugandan motorcycle rider who ferries people to the villages for a fee.

The judges remarked that, through the journalist’s “fantastic use of language”, he was able to bring audiences along to “experience the delay, the potholes, the know-it-all motorcycle drive with the bad breath as we head to our destination.”

How strange that a winning story about tourism – a non-essential but glamorous and profitable business – in an African country is one about a bad-smelling motorcycle rider navigating his way through potholes and delays.

Other winning entries were also depressing stories of despondency, focusing on, amongst others, the Mungiki criminal gang in Kenya, corruption in Mauritius, Aids and quackery in South Africa, etc.

The winning categories point to one thing: that, if you really want to walk away with that coveted award and price, you stand more chance if your entry is about war, corruption and disease – the topics traditionally associated with Africa.

The only three (out of 16) winning entries that contained positive stories were the arts and culture, economics and business as well as the sport awards.

Whichever way you look at them, the winning entries, when combined, do not paint a fair picture of life in Africa. The CNN MultiChoice African Journalist of the Year Awards therefore perpetuates – and in fact promotes – the myth of Africa as a dark continent.

ICC debate: Selective justice is not justice

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 14 July 2009

The debate in the July 2009 edition of New African magazine on the role of the International Criminal Court (ICC), particularly in relation to its perceived targeting of African leaders, raises emotions amongst those of us who feel – not without reason – that the ICC is one of the several tools that western leaders use to intimidate our leaders.

There are many reasons why we need a court modeled along the lines of the ICC to bring about justice to victims of callous regimes around the world. And this, I believe, is the reason why so many African countries supported the formation of the ICC.

We in Africa have had – and continue to experience – a fair share of the slaughtering of innocent civilians in several conflicts; and we have no reason to protect or be sympathetic to perpetrators of such heinous crimes when they are called to accounts for their criminal actions.

I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that, “when the Court investigates those allegedly responsible for serious crimes in Africa, it does so on behalf of African victims”, as Lucile Mazangue puts it in “The case for the ICC” (NA, July 2009).

The problem is that the court our leaders thought would bring these perpetrators of violence – particularly violence against civilians – to book is already apparently negating one of the basic principles of justice, which is impartiality. Selective justice, as we’ve seen practiced by the ICC, is not justice at all.

A system of justice is supposed to protect the weak against the bullying of the powerful, but the ICC appears to be doing the exact opposite. It seems to be targeting the weak in apparent pursuance of the interests of powerful western states. And that is grossly unfair and unjust.

The mandate of the ICC, as Mazangue correctly puts it, “is to hold perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to account when national courts are unwilling or unable to do so.” And we’ve seen national courts in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas unwilling and unable to act against alleged criminals.

Investigators, prosecutors and judges who look the other way when leaders of powerful western countries break international law implicate their good names in the abortion of justice.

The generally accepted principle that lawyers must practice their trade without fear, favour or prejudice seems to be a foreign concept to the ICC as an institution. The ICC is visibly neither willing nor able to charge leaders of rich western states with crimes against humanity, despite overwhelming evidence to this effect.

Selective justice conceals (seemingly by design) monumental crimes of the type we’ve seen in countries such as Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Democractic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, etc. When will victims of crime in these and many other countries see justice?

Does the ICC have both the will and the guts to catch big fish? I await a comprehensive answer from any of the officials or judges at the ICC itself.

When 'experts' exhibit egos

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 06 July 2009

One question that bothers me all the time about our media is this: when will they (the newspapers, radios, televisions and – lately – online editors) start giving the poor a platform to tell their own stories?

I get depressed listening to so-called “experts” trying, almost always unsuccessfully, to articulate the frustrations of ordinary South Africans living in conditions of abject poverty, cut out from the lifestyles of today’s liberated new middle class.

I am looking forward to a day when I switch on my television for a primetime news bulleting/programme and see a poor person in studio analyse his/her own condition, or a victim of crime talk about his own wretchedness.

When you have a politician and an “analyst” in studio, all they seem to do is engage in a war of egos. What each of them seems to be saying is: “I know better than you do.” It all comes across as an intellectual showdown rather than a genuine attempt to analyse our socio-economic situation.

Unmasking the DA’s “Open Opportunity” policy

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 01 July 2009

Democratic Alliance (DA) leader and Premier of the Western Cape Province, Helen Zille, likes talking about the need to transform South Africa into what her party calls an “Open Opportunity” society.

An Open Opportunity society, according to Zille’s DA, would be characterised mainly by “individual freedom and the limitation of state power”.

In an Open Opportunity society, “individuals [would be] free to be themselves and pursue their own ends”, with “both the law and the attitudes of the population provid[ing] the space” for individuals to be who they want to be.

On face value, demands for an Open Opportunity society would sound perfectly legitimate and convincing; but there is one big impediment:

South Africa’s history of more than 300 years of white domination, inequality, racism and oppression renders white South African liberals (once partners with the National Party in the apartheid government) unfit to champion social transformation.

An Open Opportunity society, if you really think about it carefully, is a society in which all are given equal opportunities to compete in the market place. The poor are given the know-how to compete with their fellow well-off countrymen and women on an equal footing.

The problem with the application of such a policy in South Africa now would be that only the previously advantaged, few as they are in numbers, would get the biggest slice of the country’s resources because they have had unfair advantages in the recent past.

An Open Opportunity society then becomes a survival-of-the-fittest society. And, as we know, in South Africa today, the fittest would be those who have had access to the best universities, best investments – and 80% of those would be white. And, would that still be a real “Open Opportunity” society, where the rich and the poor are expected to compete on an equal footing?

The DA itself puts it more bluntly thus: “In an open opportunity society, therefore, your path in life is not determined by the circumstances of your birth, including both your material and ‘demographic’ circumstances, but rather by your talents and by your efforts.”

Simply put, it means this: we want to do away with policies such as Affirmative Action because we do not really see the need correct the imbalances of the past. The Open Society policy then effectively translates into apartheid denialism. I do not understand why any South African from a poor background would support such a policy.

The "limitation of state power", in the context of the DA's Open Society, would encourage private enterprise and create jobs. But the limitation of state power, in a country such as South Africa, as is the case elsewhere in the world, means privatisation of state resources.

Rampant privatisation, as history teaches us, results in mass retrenchments, joblessness, poverty and, inevitably, death. In such a society, the rich get richer whilst the poor get poorer. Is that what the DA wants?

Whites under siege? Any evidence?

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 06 June 2009

The letter in The Star newspaper, written by one Afrika Katze, “Being black or white is a gift from on high” (01 June 2009), purports to analyse and discourage racism in post-apartheid South Africa; but anyone who read carefully would have noticed the author’s hidden agenda.

Katze writes, somewhere in the middle of letter, that: “The somewhat sadistic and deliberately brutal attacks perpetrated mostly on white South Africans under the guise of crime, to me qualify to be classified as racism.”

Katze effectively claims, without any shred of evidence, that the majority of white victims of crime are being targeted because of their race – an outrageous claim, if you ask me.

He also effectively alleges that there is some secret motive behind these “brutal attacks” on white South Africans. Does Katze have any proof? Does he know something the rest of us do not know?

Whilst observing that “people of a disliked hue (read blacks) often never reciprocate racial hatred”, Katze, however, suggests that black South Africans are an exception.

Are linguistic pedant loosing the battle?

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted 15 May 2009

I have to admit, after a few recent experiences, that so-called linguistic pedants (people who are strict with language and punctuation) are fighting a losing battle.

I thought it was just local pedants facing defeat, but now it turns out that even their British counterparts (first-language English speakers) are not yielding positive results.

I had an English teacher who would circle every little grammatical and punctuation error; and, soon, I got used to reading and re-reading my documents before sending to the next person. Even with an SMS, I have to read it at least three times before sending – just to make sure that there are no errors.

But, to some of my friends, this obsession with grammar and punctuation is irrelevant to them. As long as the message is clear, they say, everything else is unimportant. Which is why they continue to write me emails informing me of “house’s” and “car’s” for sale.

The British newspaper, The Telegraph, recently carried an article in which it was revealed that a study of CV blunders has found, for example, someone who wrote in a CV that he was “responsible for fraudulent claims” and another who is “highly adept at multi-tasting”.

I also have a picture (in my cellphone) of a large board in a certain liquor store warning: “Anyone under the age of 18 is not aloud”.

Sometimes, just putting a punctuation mark at the wrong place or not having it at all in a sentence may have you say things you didn’t intend saying. For example (courtesy of The Telegraph): “My interests include cooking dogs”.

In South Africa, where the majority of us are second- and third-language English speakers, some of these grammatical errors are understandable, but why would the British also join the assault on their own language?

In this era of SMSs and short-hand speech, we have become accustomed to “C u later”, “4 sure”, "cum c me 2moro", "2nite".

Although spellcheckers make it inexcusable to have spelling mistakes, these modern devises also have limitations. For example, a spellchecker will not correct you when you write “loose” instead of “lose”, “quite” instead of “quiet”, “its” instead of “it’s”.

Although some errors are permissible, applying for a job in the corporate communications industry and saying, as one of your skills, that you have “excellent poof-reading skills” puts you in a really high risk of being disqualified.

The question now is: should linguistic pedants put their red marking pens down and admit that language evolves – or what should they do? Maybe its time to admit that a linguistic pedant are loosing the battle!

Did New African plagiarise Sunday Times profile?

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 16 April 2009

In its April 2009 edition, the revered New African magazine published a profile of ANC Youth League President Julius Malema. The profile seems to have been lifted directly -- often word-for-word -- from an earlier (15 March) Sunday Times profile of the same man. Spot the “difference” below:

Sunday Times: Former Limpopo premier Sello Moloto — who at one stage almost traded blows with Malema and who has also been on the receiving end of his insults — says there is little respect for Malema in his home town.

New African: So what does his home town think of Malema? Sello Moloto, the former premier of Limpopo, who has had several run-ins with Malema, says there is little respect for him.

Sunday Times: “Limpopo is very conservative. Every old person is asking, ‘Who is this child? Who are his parents and family and why are they allowing him to behave the way he does?’”

New African: “Everybody is asking, who is this child? Who are his parents and family, and why are they allowing him to behave this way?”

Sunday Times: But Malema finds a champion in Marcus Malebatse, a teacher at Malema’s former high school. Malebatse blames the media for provoking Malema to make his outrageous statements, claiming the coverage of his past pupil was merely to “sell newspapers”.

New African: His former teacher, Marcus Malebatse, however has a different opinion. He charges that the coverage of Malema’s utterances was merely to sell newspapers. That as a young man, he should be given space to mature in the political arena.

Sunday Times: ANC Women’s League president Angie Motshekga last month told a congregation in KwaMakhutha, south of Durban: “I know you will ask me why you should vote for the ANC if it still keeps Malema, who is a problematic child. I will reply and say that no home is without someone who I can refer to as a black sheep.

New African: The ANC's concern (about Malema's utterances) was evident when Angie Motshekga, the president of the ANC Women's League, opined: “I know you will ask me why you should vote for the ANC if it still keeps Malema, who is a problematic child. I will reply that no home is without someone is a problematic child. If you have children you do not throw them into the dustbin or eliminate them to solve a problem.”

Lest we forget ...

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 25 March 2009

One of Jean-Paul Sartre’s observations in his famous preface to Franz Fanon’s book, The Wretched of the Earth, is that, during the colonial period: “The European élite undertook to manufacture a native elite,” singling out promising adolescents and branding them with the principles of western culture.

According to Sarte, the colonisers would take these promising young people to Western countries for indoctrination and then sent them home, whitewashed. “These walking lies,” Sartre says, “had nothing left to say to their brothers; they only echoed.”

For it to succeed, “the national revolution must be socialist; if its career is cut short, if the native bourgeoisie takes over power, the new State, in spite of its formal sovereignty, remains in the hands of the imperialists.”

When the colonizers come knocking, dressed up as liberators and modernizers, Sartre warns that “everything will be done to wipe out [the traditions of the colonized societies], to substitute our language for theirs and to destroy their culture without giving them ours.”

But how will that be done? Well, Sartre explains: “Sheer physical fatigue will stupefy them. Starved and ill, if they have any spirit left, fear will finish the job; guns are levelled at the peasant; civilians come to take over his land and force him by dint of flogging to till the land for them.

“If he shows fight, the soldiers fire and he’s a dead man; if he gives in, he degrades himself and he is no longer a man at all; shame and fear will split up his character and make his inmost self fall to pieces.”

The reason so many different tribal groups in former colonies fight against each other is this: “they cannot face the real enemy,” says Sartre — “and you can count on colonial policy to keep up their rivalries.”

Look at Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for example. When President Mwai Kibaki was announced as winner after the December 2007 elections, the opposition, led by Raila Odinga, disputed the results; and what happened? The poor went on rampage on the streets, fighting along tribal lines.

In the midst of the riots, between 700 and 1000 people were left dead, with an estimated 260 000 more displaced because of violence, fought along narrow party political and tribal lines. And what would Sartre say? “They cannot face the real enemy” – the power-hungry leaders who incite violence and fight for positions using the poor.

Whatever our fate as Africans, we can’t say we were never warned. We can’t always quote Greek philosophers when we had amongst us the likes of Fanon and his fellow comrades in the struggle for freedom: freedom from colonialism, imperialism, hunger, fear, as well as economic and cultural dependence on former masters.

Will the Doubting Thomases ever be satisfied?

Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 17 March 2009

Not so long ago, South Africans marked 500 days to the start of the historic 2010 FIFA World Cup.

Various stakeholders involved in delivering the soccer spectacle - and soccer lovers across the country and the world - used the occasion to reflect on the road travelled up to now, and what remains to be done.

We got together to celebrate the great opportunity accorded to us as a young democratic county. Many in the international media celebrated with us, dedicating significant space and airtime to help us communicate the message that, indeed, "Africa's time has come: South Africa is ready."

Considering the amount of work done so far on 2010 projects, there should be no need to be issuing out assurances that South Africa will be ready to host a successful FIFA World Cup come 2010. The work now speaks for itself. Our country is now literally a construction site.

The 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup will be taking place in a few months from now; and there is no doubt that all the four host cities will be ready come the day. Everything is shaping up and tickets to both the Confederations Cup and the World Cup are already on sale.

Whilst many of us are preparing to welcome soccer lovers to our shores next year, sceptics remain unconvinced that we'll be able to host a successful tournament.

They ask a lot of questions about a wide range of issues, ranging from crime, match attendance to the very usefulness of hosting the biggest soccer tournament in the world.

Ideally, the sceptics shouldn't be asking questions at this stage of our preparations, because the work now speaks for itself.

But, they continue to ask:"What if criminals take advantage of unsuspecting tourists? Will the police be up to the task? Will our hotels be able to accommodate the volume of spectators expected? What if the fans don't pitch and the stadiums are empty?"

Some even go as far as asking: "What is the point of spending so much money on upgrading infrastructure for the world cup when so many South Africans are poor and in need of state intervention? Aren't the tickets unaffordable, particularly given the levels of poverty in our country and continent? Won't the stadiums become white elephants after 2010?"

These are justifiable questions, except for the fact that some of the most vocal Doubting Thomases asking these questions look the other way when presented with facts.

Some of them, though, ask these questions innocently, acting out of utter ignorance.

There are certain realities the 2010 sceptics do not want to admit; and these include the fact that:

* The FIFA World Cup is coming to South Africa; and there is no turning back. Africa's time has come: South Africa is ready.

* People are already benefiting from 2010 opportunities. Just ask the construction workers in the stadiums, on the roads, on our telecommunications infrastructure, in the offices.

* 2010 is a great opportunity to market South Africa internationally; and some of the soccer tourists will hopefully return years after the tournament.

* Many of the stadiums are actually multi-purpose centres, to be used for a variety of occasions well into the future.

NB: This article also appears on News24, available on the following link:
http://www.news24.com/News24/MyNews24/Your_story/0,,2-2127-2128_2481133,00.html