Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 07 December 2010
There is honesty, and there is plain bigotry; and there is DF Malan; HF Verwoed; PW Botha. To that list, you can also add a few contemporaries, amongst them Annelie Botes and Steve Hofmeyer.
Despite their varied backgrounds, ranging from politician to writer to musician, these names share a few common traits.
They all come from privileged backgrounds. They are all generally ignorant. Most significantly, they all have a sense of racial superiority over black people.
In all fairness to the individuals named above, their sense of racial superiority is a heritage from the past. They have internalised the bigotry with which black people all over the world have been treated over centuries.
It is a matter of historical record that the relationship between colonial master Europe and colonial subject Africa resulted in the pillaging and plundering of Africa’s riches.
It is also a matter of historical record that the apartheid system, which sought to protect white privileges at the expense of blacks, was declared by the United Nations as “the supreme crime against humanity.”
At the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), apartheid leaders and their agents were made to apologise for the atrocities committed against black people.
As it turns out, the apologies were mostly superficial, meant primarily to help criminals avoid prosecution for the atrocities committed against black people.
As a result, many a white apartheid agent still walks free today, owing to the generosity of spirit and civility of black leaders such as Nelson Mandela.
Yet, black people in South Africa today are still derided as a lowly bunch, unequal and undeserving of the social and economic status of their white fellows.
Sixteen years after the first democratic elections, a silent but vicious faction of the white community is still stirring up racist rhetoric.
The idea is to keep the black man down “where he belongs”.
So, on a day when members of a white family appeared in a Pretoria court on allegations of producing pornographic material featuring children, singer Hofmeyr reportedly suggested on his Facebook page that blacks are inherently criminal.
With no sense of irony, Hofmeyr is reported to have wrote: “Blacks (God knows, probably not all of them, but most of those I observe) feel justified and 'entitled' in everything, from quotas/low matric marks to land rights/brutality.
"Sorry to emphasise the colour, but I'm struggling to spot the terrible whites who climb over blacks' walls to do that to their children."
Just a week earlier, award-winning Afrikaans author Botes told the Mail & Guardian newspaper that she does not like black men because they are criminals.
Thousands of other white people probably echo similar sentiments in private.
Botes herself claimed to have received more than a thousand emails supporting her statement.
The saddest part, though, is not that these people publicise their racist views. What saddens me is that South Africans are pretending that there are no racial tensions in the country.
In the various sectors of the South African society, apartheid is alive and well. And this occasionally manifests itself in our national discourse, with a few bigots from both sides of the race divide occasionally coming out to throw a slur.
What is evident is that South Africans still do not trust each other. We haven’t cracked the apartheid psychological infrastructure – and we’re not even attempting to.
Former president Thabo Mbeki was admonished and effectively censored for saying during a parliamentary debate on reconciliation and nation building that South Africa had two nations.
To wide derision, Mbeki said: “One of these nations is white, relatively prosperous, regardless of gender or geographic dispersal. It has ready access to a developed economic, physical, educational, communication and other infrastructure.
“The second and larger nation of South Africa is black and poor, with the worst affected being women in the rural areas, the black rural population in general and the disabled.
“This nation lives under conditions of a grossly underdeveloped economic, physical, educational, communication and other infrastructure.
“It has virtually no possibility to exercise what in reality amounts to a theoretical right to equal opportunity, with that right being equal within this black nation only to the extent that it is equally incapable of realisation.”
We now seem to have a choice between the honest truth as told by Mbeki – or the honest truth as told by Hofmeyr and the like. Neutrality on this matter is completely undesirable.
As Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
Showing posts with label Black people. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Black people. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Report calls for reintroduction of apartheid-era practice
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 10 November 2010
Two critical issues curiously escaped the media’s reporting following the release by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) of a study into causes of violent crime in South Africa.
Firstly, the report explicitly fingered three groups of African nationalities as being responsible for some of the violence in the country.
The report cited “substantial evidence” implicating Zimbabweans and Mozambicans in criminal networks, including, very specifically, “cash-in-transit heists and other aggravated robberies.”
“Zimbabwean groups include some gangs that are believed to consist mainly of former policemen and soldiers, and these are believed to be linked to some of the major cash-in-transit heists,” the report says.
Nigerian nationals, on the other hand, “reportedly control approximately 80% of the cocaine trade inside South Africa, and they service most of the country except Western Cape,” according to the report.
The second critical matter that is not being mentioned in the media was a controversial call for the reintroduction of the apartheid-era practice of profiling criminal suspects according to their race.
Crime statistics released by the South African Police Service do not make reference to the race of both victims and perpetrators, apparently to avoid the use of crime statistics to reinforce racial prejudices.
The CSVR report nevertheless records “significant differences between different groups in relation to patterns of victimisation and offending”.
The CSVR concept paper, under the sub-topic, “Race crime and violent crime”, argues that it is “meaningless” to maintain that there are no significant differences in levels of offending between different communities in South Africa.
Two critical issues curiously escaped the media’s reporting following the release by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) of a study into causes of violent crime in South Africa.
Firstly, the report explicitly fingered three groups of African nationalities as being responsible for some of the violence in the country.
The report cited “substantial evidence” implicating Zimbabweans and Mozambicans in criminal networks, including, very specifically, “cash-in-transit heists and other aggravated robberies.”
“Zimbabwean groups include some gangs that are believed to consist mainly of former policemen and soldiers, and these are believed to be linked to some of the major cash-in-transit heists,” the report says.
Nigerian nationals, on the other hand, “reportedly control approximately 80% of the cocaine trade inside South Africa, and they service most of the country except Western Cape,” according to the report.
The second critical matter that is not being mentioned in the media was a controversial call for the reintroduction of the apartheid-era practice of profiling criminal suspects according to their race.
Crime statistics released by the South African Police Service do not make reference to the race of both victims and perpetrators, apparently to avoid the use of crime statistics to reinforce racial prejudices.
The CSVR report nevertheless records “significant differences between different groups in relation to patterns of victimisation and offending”.
The CSVR concept paper, under the sub-topic, “Race crime and violent crime”, argues that it is “meaningless” to maintain that there are no significant differences in levels of offending between different communities in South Africa.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
An insult to the poor
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 06 October 2010
Meshack Mabogoane ignores all established knowledge in a bid to insult the poor, “Teenage girls the victims of the new Nongqawuse” (Business Day, 06 October 2010).
Mabogwane claims that unmarried teenagers “are having more children to access more grants” and proposes the formulation of a “commission of inquiry to investigate why there has been an exponential increase in child grant dependants.”
So, in essence, Mabogoane is proposing that a commission be set up to confirm his conviction that teenagers fall pregnant in order to receive grants.
He ignores the fact that the incidence of teenage pregnancy is not unique to South Africa. And some of the countries where teenage pregnancy is as prevalent do not even have a social grant system similar to South Africa’s.
Various academic studies – and some by organisations such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) – have attributed the prevalence of teenage pregnancy to several factors, amongst them dysfunctional families and various negative societal influences.
Currently, the monthly child support grant is R240, not enough to buy me breakfast, lunch and dinner in one day.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the many teenagers falling pregnant do so with the sole purpose of receiving this pittance.
See Mabogoane's article here: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=122902
Meshack Mabogoane ignores all established knowledge in a bid to insult the poor, “Teenage girls the victims of the new Nongqawuse” (Business Day, 06 October 2010).
Mabogwane claims that unmarried teenagers “are having more children to access more grants” and proposes the formulation of a “commission of inquiry to investigate why there has been an exponential increase in child grant dependants.”
So, in essence, Mabogoane is proposing that a commission be set up to confirm his conviction that teenagers fall pregnant in order to receive grants.
He ignores the fact that the incidence of teenage pregnancy is not unique to South Africa. And some of the countries where teenage pregnancy is as prevalent do not even have a social grant system similar to South Africa’s.
Various academic studies – and some by organisations such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) – have attributed the prevalence of teenage pregnancy to several factors, amongst them dysfunctional families and various negative societal influences.
Currently, the monthly child support grant is R240, not enough to buy me breakfast, lunch and dinner in one day.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the many teenagers falling pregnant do so with the sole purpose of receiving this pittance.
See Mabogoane's article here: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=122902
Monday, August 16, 2010
Constitution Hill: from prejudice to justice
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 16 August 2010
Want to talk forgiveness, racial tolerance, social cohesion and justice? Okay, good – just don’t go on a tour of Constitution Hill. Go somewhere else.
Admittedly, though, the tour guides are good at calming down tempers. And the skill occasionally comes handy during a tour of this national heritage site.
Built on the site of a former prison complex, the Constitution Hill invokes painful memories of South Africa’s past and brings into sharp perspective the brutality of the apartheid system.
To have the Constitutional Court of a free and democratic South Africa based at the site of this apartheid prison complex seems almost paradoxical, for here you have prejudice and justice under one roof.
The tour guides have a line for it: “We’ve taken the bricks that used to imprison us to build a future for our country, to guard against the possibility of the injustices that happened here recurring.”
But that hardly makes up for the humiliation suffered here by black prisoners, some of whom were common law criminals, but many more of whom were political prisoners.
The crimes committed by inmates at this complex varied from shoplifting to one being a member of a banned political organisation, such as the ANC, PAC or the SACP. Some were arrested for not carrying “passes”, others for brewing traditional beer whilst black (a crime during apartheid).
The reasons for the hundreds imprisoned at the Number Four Prison varied, and the variation also extended to the way inmates were treated: if you were black, humiliation and torture awaited you; if you were white, relative luxury.
The intention seems to have been to break the spirit of black resistance to apartheid, but some mavericks within the black anti-apartheid movement upheld their opposition to the system, despite the harsh and unjust punishment.
Robert Sobukwe’s words of resistance are immortalised in the former prison: “We refuse to plead because our contention is that the law under which we are charged is a law made exclusively by the white man, specifically for the oppression of blacks.”
The story of the Number Four Prison, including the discrimination inside, is better told by the former inmates themselves. These include such famous political figures as Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Robert Sobukwe, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Helen Joseph and more.
Others, like former inmate Cornelius Manoto, are not well known, but their stories are not less alarming: “To eat from rusted containers was terrible; not to speak of the treatment from warders. Every morning we would stand in the shade feeling cold not even seeing the sunshine. In the court we will be stripped naked and subjected to utter humiliation of the worst order.”
Barbara Hogan, another former inmate, explains the racial preferential treatment: “This cell (in the white section of the Women’s Jail) was like none other I had ever known. A Van Gogh interior, wooden floors, sash windows, three simple beds, a table and chairs. Freezing cold, certainly, but compared to police cells, absolute luxury.”
Those who envisaged the concept of a Constitutional Court at the site of an apartheid prison complex say the project symbolizes South Africa’s intricate and painful journey from apartheid to freedom.
The transition was unprecedented in its efficiency, but the wounds are still fresh, and a lamentation by a former inmate betrays the apparent peace that exists between our past and our present.
Writing in a book on the Constitution Hill project, Mapping Memory, former inmate John Moeketsi Mahapa says: “What we fought for all those years has not been achieved. Our people still live in appalling poverty, there are no jobs, people have no houses and worst of all, many of our people are landless.”
NB: Article written following a tour of the Constitutional Hill on Friday, 13 August 2010.
Want to talk forgiveness, racial tolerance, social cohesion and justice? Okay, good – just don’t go on a tour of Constitution Hill. Go somewhere else.
Admittedly, though, the tour guides are good at calming down tempers. And the skill occasionally comes handy during a tour of this national heritage site.
Built on the site of a former prison complex, the Constitution Hill invokes painful memories of South Africa’s past and brings into sharp perspective the brutality of the apartheid system.
To have the Constitutional Court of a free and democratic South Africa based at the site of this apartheid prison complex seems almost paradoxical, for here you have prejudice and justice under one roof.
The tour guides have a line for it: “We’ve taken the bricks that used to imprison us to build a future for our country, to guard against the possibility of the injustices that happened here recurring.”
But that hardly makes up for the humiliation suffered here by black prisoners, some of whom were common law criminals, but many more of whom were political prisoners.
The crimes committed by inmates at this complex varied from shoplifting to one being a member of a banned political organisation, such as the ANC, PAC or the SACP. Some were arrested for not carrying “passes”, others for brewing traditional beer whilst black (a crime during apartheid).
The reasons for the hundreds imprisoned at the Number Four Prison varied, and the variation also extended to the way inmates were treated: if you were black, humiliation and torture awaited you; if you were white, relative luxury.
The intention seems to have been to break the spirit of black resistance to apartheid, but some mavericks within the black anti-apartheid movement upheld their opposition to the system, despite the harsh and unjust punishment.
Robert Sobukwe’s words of resistance are immortalised in the former prison: “We refuse to plead because our contention is that the law under which we are charged is a law made exclusively by the white man, specifically for the oppression of blacks.”
The story of the Number Four Prison, including the discrimination inside, is better told by the former inmates themselves. These include such famous political figures as Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Robert Sobukwe, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Helen Joseph and more.
Others, like former inmate Cornelius Manoto, are not well known, but their stories are not less alarming: “To eat from rusted containers was terrible; not to speak of the treatment from warders. Every morning we would stand in the shade feeling cold not even seeing the sunshine. In the court we will be stripped naked and subjected to utter humiliation of the worst order.”
Barbara Hogan, another former inmate, explains the racial preferential treatment: “This cell (in the white section of the Women’s Jail) was like none other I had ever known. A Van Gogh interior, wooden floors, sash windows, three simple beds, a table and chairs. Freezing cold, certainly, but compared to police cells, absolute luxury.”
Those who envisaged the concept of a Constitutional Court at the site of an apartheid prison complex say the project symbolizes South Africa’s intricate and painful journey from apartheid to freedom.
The transition was unprecedented in its efficiency, but the wounds are still fresh, and a lamentation by a former inmate betrays the apparent peace that exists between our past and our present.
Writing in a book on the Constitution Hill project, Mapping Memory, former inmate John Moeketsi Mahapa says: “What we fought for all those years has not been achieved. Our people still live in appalling poverty, there are no jobs, people have no houses and worst of all, many of our people are landless.”
NB: Article written following a tour of the Constitutional Hill on Friday, 13 August 2010.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Mountain schools not just about circumcision
Traditional circumcision prepares the youth for adulthood; more specifically for marriage and reproduction.
By Madibeng Kgwete: published on 20 July 2010
Why am I not surprised that Percy Mabandu describes the traditional African passage from boyhood to manhood as merely going through “the hand of a blade-wielding old man in the bush”?
In his article, “A cut above the rest” (City Press, 19 July 2010), Mabandu, who claims to be living a “post-tribal and neo-ethnic” life, writes provocatively that circumcision is part of “mobile hybridities of earlier identities.”
He should tell that to the young men from my village in Sekhukhune, Limpopo, who just returned from the mountain on the Saturday of 17 July, 2010.
In my village – and I’m sure the same applies to other villages still practicing traditional circumcision – mashoboro (Pedi for men who’ve not been to the mountain) are not allowed to even talk about traditional circumcision.
The offence is comparable to a depiction of the prophet Muhammad.
So, why is one not surprised that Mabandu sneers at the tradition the way he does?
Well, by his own admission, he didn’t feel like more of a man after his return from the surgery. That, precisely, is because the surgery is not the place to turn boys into men.
People in urban areas and in other places where the institution of traditional leadership is weak or non-existent may never fully appreciate what a mountain school is and what it is meant to achieve.
A traditional circumcision school can only be run by a legitimate chief or someone designated by a legitimate chief, and its purpose is not merely to circumcise boys. It goes further than that.
Traditional circumcision (known in Sepedi as koma) is a preparatory school for the ultimate integration of the youth into adulthood; more specifically to prepare one for marriage and reproduction.
A proper and legitimate circumcision school has the blessings of ancestors and is conducted by experienced traditional surgeons, most of whom are recognised traditional doctors. Deaths of initiates at legitimate mountain schools are rare occurrences.
The mountain school teaches you various lessons, including that of man as head of family and the responsibilities that come with that role. Other lessons would be hard to comprehend (and impossible to live by) for dudes in the townships and suburbs.
By Madibeng Kgwete: published on 20 July 2010
Why am I not surprised that Percy Mabandu describes the traditional African passage from boyhood to manhood as merely going through “the hand of a blade-wielding old man in the bush”?
In his article, “A cut above the rest” (City Press, 19 July 2010), Mabandu, who claims to be living a “post-tribal and neo-ethnic” life, writes provocatively that circumcision is part of “mobile hybridities of earlier identities.”
He should tell that to the young men from my village in Sekhukhune, Limpopo, who just returned from the mountain on the Saturday of 17 July, 2010.
In my village – and I’m sure the same applies to other villages still practicing traditional circumcision – mashoboro (Pedi for men who’ve not been to the mountain) are not allowed to even talk about traditional circumcision.
The offence is comparable to a depiction of the prophet Muhammad.
So, why is one not surprised that Mabandu sneers at the tradition the way he does?
Well, by his own admission, he didn’t feel like more of a man after his return from the surgery. That, precisely, is because the surgery is not the place to turn boys into men.
People in urban areas and in other places where the institution of traditional leadership is weak or non-existent may never fully appreciate what a mountain school is and what it is meant to achieve.
A traditional circumcision school can only be run by a legitimate chief or someone designated by a legitimate chief, and its purpose is not merely to circumcise boys. It goes further than that.
Traditional circumcision (known in Sepedi as koma) is a preparatory school for the ultimate integration of the youth into adulthood; more specifically to prepare one for marriage and reproduction.
A proper and legitimate circumcision school has the blessings of ancestors and is conducted by experienced traditional surgeons, most of whom are recognised traditional doctors. Deaths of initiates at legitimate mountain schools are rare occurrences.
The mountain school teaches you various lessons, including that of man as head of family and the responsibilities that come with that role. Other lessons would be hard to comprehend (and impossible to live by) for dudes in the townships and suburbs.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Marabastaad: a sorry shadow of its past dynamic character
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 07 May 2010
The mother of black township life would shame its stylish and dignified residents of the 18th and early 19th century.
Just mere mention of the Marabastaad section of Pretoria and some things come to mind: filth, noise, chaos, hooting minibus taxis. The irony, though, is that Solomon Plaatjie, the iconic struggle veteran, shared similar frustrations about the same place more than a century ago.
This, and several other fascinating discoveries, formed part of the new knowledge acquired during my recent visit to the National Cultural History Museum, situated at the corner of Visagie and Bosman streets in Pretoria.
As the first area in Pretoria to house both blacks and coloureds in the year 1885, Marabastaad is one of the capital city’s most historic places – and probably even the precursor to township life as we have it today. But even its dynamic character did not escape the wrath of racial segregation.
The country’s then white administrators neglected the area in relation to the provision of services, in the process inviting vociferous protest from such famous figures as Plaatjie who lamented the living conditions of black people in the area.
Plaatjie described houses for black people in the area as “unhealthy and ramshackle hovels, lined along rocky and craggy apologies for streets”.
Instead of channeling more resources into the development of the area as per protests from the likes of Plaatjie, authorities had a different plan: to enact legislation, the Native Land Act, that legalised the forced removal of all of Marabastaad’s residents to areas further away from the city.
Blacks were taken to Attridgeville, Indians to Laudium and coloureds to Eersterust. By so doing, the authorities (by then operating the greater crime of apartheid) planted the early seeds of racial discord, under the guise of so-called “separate development.”
Before its disintegration, though, Marabastaad gave birth not only to several notable figures in South Africa’s public life, such as Eskia Mphahlele (1919) and Jay Naidoo (1941), but also heralded a sense of personal dignity, fashion and style atypical in today’s township life.
Original ladies’ high heel shoes, complete with gold and silver bling, provide a glimpse into the social life of the bygone era which, without doubt, will continue to inspire generations to come. Even though the residents in those days lived under the yoke of racial segregation, they still had a deep sense of personal dignity.
I wonder if they also had hobos then, if they had men, women and children calling bridges and abandoned buildings their homes. I wonder if people cooked food out on the streets, right next to stinking piles of rubbish. I wonder if they also had pick-pocketing.
The museum keeps some original pieces of life in the old Marabastaad, including a black-and-white aerial picture of the residential section for natives. Other items include original window frames, cutlery, beds and a large wooden radio.
Marabastaad in those days, as described by the museum, was “cosmopolitan in character”, consisting of “an urban mixture of shops, dealers, cafes, dry cleaners” which were owned by local residents, generating revenue and employment, injecting life into the area, giving a sense of purpose and accomplishment to the locals.
Even the forceful removals of non-whites further away from the city – and, in particular, out of Marabastaad – revealed other courageous traits about the people of the area: unity, determination, discipline and, very importantly, peaceful and organised protest in pursuit of justice.
One of Marabastaad’s notable protesters against the Native Land Act was Nana Sita, born in Indian in 1894. Sita came to South Africa at the age of 14 and became a resident of (and an activist in) Marabastaad, even drawing the attention of the police and the media.
In 1952, Nana was convicted for his role in the Defiance Campaign, and the Weekly Mail published his last picture (in which he appeared with Nelson Mandela) before incarceration in one of its December 1952 editions.
By then, Nana was president of the Transvaal Indian Congress, an anti-apartheid organisation that drew much inspiration and support from Mahatma Gandhi.
The great irony, though, is that if Plaatjie were to wake up from the dead today, his description of Marabastaad would most probably be harsher than his take on the same place more than a century ago.
The mother of black township life would shame its stylish and dignified residents of the 18th and early 19th century.
Just mere mention of the Marabastaad section of Pretoria and some things come to mind: filth, noise, chaos, hooting minibus taxis. The irony, though, is that Solomon Plaatjie, the iconic struggle veteran, shared similar frustrations about the same place more than a century ago.
This, and several other fascinating discoveries, formed part of the new knowledge acquired during my recent visit to the National Cultural History Museum, situated at the corner of Visagie and Bosman streets in Pretoria.
As the first area in Pretoria to house both blacks and coloureds in the year 1885, Marabastaad is one of the capital city’s most historic places – and probably even the precursor to township life as we have it today. But even its dynamic character did not escape the wrath of racial segregation.
The country’s then white administrators neglected the area in relation to the provision of services, in the process inviting vociferous protest from such famous figures as Plaatjie who lamented the living conditions of black people in the area.
Plaatjie described houses for black people in the area as “unhealthy and ramshackle hovels, lined along rocky and craggy apologies for streets”.
Instead of channeling more resources into the development of the area as per protests from the likes of Plaatjie, authorities had a different plan: to enact legislation, the Native Land Act, that legalised the forced removal of all of Marabastaad’s residents to areas further away from the city.
Blacks were taken to Attridgeville, Indians to Laudium and coloureds to Eersterust. By so doing, the authorities (by then operating the greater crime of apartheid) planted the early seeds of racial discord, under the guise of so-called “separate development.”
Before its disintegration, though, Marabastaad gave birth not only to several notable figures in South Africa’s public life, such as Eskia Mphahlele (1919) and Jay Naidoo (1941), but also heralded a sense of personal dignity, fashion and style atypical in today’s township life.
Original ladies’ high heel shoes, complete with gold and silver bling, provide a glimpse into the social life of the bygone era which, without doubt, will continue to inspire generations to come. Even though the residents in those days lived under the yoke of racial segregation, they still had a deep sense of personal dignity.
I wonder if they also had hobos then, if they had men, women and children calling bridges and abandoned buildings their homes. I wonder if people cooked food out on the streets, right next to stinking piles of rubbish. I wonder if they also had pick-pocketing.
The museum keeps some original pieces of life in the old Marabastaad, including a black-and-white aerial picture of the residential section for natives. Other items include original window frames, cutlery, beds and a large wooden radio.
Marabastaad in those days, as described by the museum, was “cosmopolitan in character”, consisting of “an urban mixture of shops, dealers, cafes, dry cleaners” which were owned by local residents, generating revenue and employment, injecting life into the area, giving a sense of purpose and accomplishment to the locals.
Even the forceful removals of non-whites further away from the city – and, in particular, out of Marabastaad – revealed other courageous traits about the people of the area: unity, determination, discipline and, very importantly, peaceful and organised protest in pursuit of justice.
One of Marabastaad’s notable protesters against the Native Land Act was Nana Sita, born in Indian in 1894. Sita came to South Africa at the age of 14 and became a resident of (and an activist in) Marabastaad, even drawing the attention of the police and the media.
In 1952, Nana was convicted for his role in the Defiance Campaign, and the Weekly Mail published his last picture (in which he appeared with Nelson Mandela) before incarceration in one of its December 1952 editions.
By then, Nana was president of the Transvaal Indian Congress, an anti-apartheid organisation that drew much inspiration and support from Mahatma Gandhi.
The great irony, though, is that if Plaatjie were to wake up from the dead today, his description of Marabastaad would most probably be harsher than his take on the same place more than a century ago.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Open letter to President-elect Obama
We look foward to a change of heart in the White House
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 005 November 2008
First of all, let me congratulate you on your historic election to the high office of President of the United States of America.
I would also like to congratulate the American voters for making history by electing you as the first African-American to occupy the position of president of the United States.
As you are well aware, your election comes at a time when the world economy is shrinking and America is fighting a controversial and illegal war in Iraq.
You may also be aware that the international community, and the African continent in particular, has welcomed your election with the hope that the imminent change of leadership in the White House will bring about a change in the manner in which America has related with friends and foes abroad.
Because of your history as a descendent of the Kenyan people, we Africans see you as one of us. We therefore look forward not only to a change of leadership at the White House, but also a change of heart in the manner in which America relates with Africa.
In your victory speech, you mentioned that change has come to America. We in Africa would also appreciate it if the winds of change blowing in America could also blow towards our continent – which is also your ancestral home.
I am particularly keenly waiting to see what will guide your foreign policy towards Africa, your ancestral home and therefore your continent as well. Up to now, American foreign policy towards Africa has been guided mainly by self-interest, selective justice and double standards.
For example:
(a) In America, funding of political parties by foreigners is prohibited. However, America funds opposition political parties in African countries. The most obvious example is Zimbabwe.
(b) America preaches freedom and equality internationally, but the same America and her allies reject efforts to democratise the United Nations (UN), particularly the UN Security Council.
No other continent has as many members at the UN as Africa. Yet, Africa is the only continent without a permanent seat at the powerful UN Security Council.
(c) America is a fervent advocate of peace, security and prosperity. Yet, at a time when the world’s poor are getting poorer and hungrier, America continues to spend trillions of American taxpayers’ money buying weapons.
(d) Africa is rich in natural resources, ranging from minerals to agricultural products. However, America and her allies at the World Trade Organisation and other international gatherings continue to negotiate unfair trade deals favoring the rich and powerful over the poor and vulnerable countries, most of which are African.
(e) The American constitution emphasises justice and equality as being amongst the basic tenets of freedom. Yet, in practice, America and her allies have sponsored efforts to apply selective justice at the International Criminal Court and other juristic bodies.
Your soon-to-be predecessor, President George W. Bush, has damaged America’s reputation internationally with his “war on terror” – arming the troops with weapons to fight an ideology oversees.
We in Africa are now elated that a man we can easily associate with has been elected to the high office of the President of the United States of America. We therefore look forward to change – change of leadership style and change of heart in the White House.
Under your able leadership, we in Africa – your ancestral home – look forward to a US that not only preaches but also practices freedom, equality, peace, security and justice at home and abroad.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
We forget Prof. Mphahlele at our own peril
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 29 October 2008
The silence of our country’s academics, political leaders and the intellectual community at large following the recent death of Prof. Eskia Mphahlele is regrettable for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, our silence suggests that we do not value our intellectuals and ambassadors of goodwill. We do not seem to have placed any significant value in the wealth of knowledge and talent that Prof. Mphahlele possessed.
Worse still, we are bound to forget not only the man himself and his personal struggles in pursuit of political and intellectual freedom for the African people; we are also bound to forget his wise counsel and his vision.
Knowledge, as they say, is power; and when we ignore the power of the likes of Prof. Mphahlele’s knowledge, we voluntarily submit ourselves to amnesia. Who, then, will our heroes be?
Mphahlele deserves, at the very least, a provincial funeral and, for future purposes, the channeling of more resources to the Eskia Institute and other memorials in his honour to allow for the transfer of his knowledge to younger generations.
The silence of our country’s academics, political leaders and the intellectual community at large following the recent death of Prof. Eskia Mphahlele is regrettable for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, our silence suggests that we do not value our intellectuals and ambassadors of goodwill. We do not seem to have placed any significant value in the wealth of knowledge and talent that Prof. Mphahlele possessed.
Worse still, we are bound to forget not only the man himself and his personal struggles in pursuit of political and intellectual freedom for the African people; we are also bound to forget his wise counsel and his vision.
Knowledge, as they say, is power; and when we ignore the power of the likes of Prof. Mphahlele’s knowledge, we voluntarily submit ourselves to amnesia. Who, then, will our heroes be?
Mphahlele deserves, at the very least, a provincial funeral and, for future purposes, the channeling of more resources to the Eskia Institute and other memorials in his honour to allow for the transfer of his knowledge to younger generations.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Give the Forum for Black Journalists a chance
Why is it that critics of the FBJ keep mum about the existance of other racially exclusive groups, such as the Afkikaners-only community of Orania?
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 28 February 2008
Pity the chairperson of the re-launched Forum for Black Journalists (FBJ) and political editor of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Eddie Makue.
The poor Makue found himself and his organisation at the receiving end of criticism following the exclusion of white journalists from the meeting of the FBJ where African National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma was to deliver an exclusive address.
The choir of critics, made mostly by white journalists and members of the black media elite, have criticised the re-launch of the FBJ at a time when the country is supposed to be consolidating the gains made in racial tolerance.
Interviewed on SAfm recently, Makue apologised for the exclusion of white journalists from the said controversial meeting, saying he does not condone the alleged racial behaviour by members of his organisation, directed at white journalists at the beginning of the meeting.
The most influential voices in our media, including the likes of Max Du Preez and several newspaper editors, seem to agree that the country does not need a racially exclusive club of journalists. There are two main arguments against such a club.
Firstly, it is argued, as Du Preez does in his article, “Welcome the world’s first jellyfish president” (The Star, 28 February), that the club will promote “racial exclusion”.
Du Preez dismissed the FBJ on the grounds that its members “feel so insecure and inferior about their own abilities that they have to go and seek solace in a racially exclusive little club.” Other critics of the FBJ share similar views.
The second argument upon which the FBJ is criticised is that its members, by allowing Zuma to deliver an exclusive address to them, have voluntarily submitted themselves for political indoctrination.
Both arguments against the re-launch of the FBJ ignore the fact that other racially-exclusive clubs are allowed to operate without condemnation. Such clubs include the Jewish Board of Deputies, the Afri Forum and the Black Lawyers’ Association.
Members of the FBJ, including its chairperson Makue, must learn to stand their ground and continue to build the club so that the matters it was formed to focus on are given necessary attention.
Racism against black people is a global phenomenon and black people must organise themselves to tackle this. Blacks may be the majority in Africa, but, on a global scale, the black race is a minority race. The black race is also an underdog race.
Anywhere you go, from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, black people find themselves having to assert the fact that they too are human beings and deserve to live under conditions similar to those accorded to other races.
South Africa must give the FBJ a chance to re-launch and concentrate on matters that its members believe are of particular concern to its members.
In the free country we live in, no one stops white journalists from forming their own Forum for White Journalists, as proposed by Cliff Saunders in his letter, “Forum for White Journalists has much to talk about” (The Star, 27 February).
I’d like the critics of the FBJ to explain why the country must reject the blacks-only forum whilst the same country remains silent about (and at times even celebrate) the Afrikaners-only community of Orania.
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 28 February 2008
Pity the chairperson of the re-launched Forum for Black Journalists (FBJ) and political editor of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Eddie Makue.
The poor Makue found himself and his organisation at the receiving end of criticism following the exclusion of white journalists from the meeting of the FBJ where African National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma was to deliver an exclusive address.
The choir of critics, made mostly by white journalists and members of the black media elite, have criticised the re-launch of the FBJ at a time when the country is supposed to be consolidating the gains made in racial tolerance.
Interviewed on SAfm recently, Makue apologised for the exclusion of white journalists from the said controversial meeting, saying he does not condone the alleged racial behaviour by members of his organisation, directed at white journalists at the beginning of the meeting.
The most influential voices in our media, including the likes of Max Du Preez and several newspaper editors, seem to agree that the country does not need a racially exclusive club of journalists. There are two main arguments against such a club.
Firstly, it is argued, as Du Preez does in his article, “Welcome the world’s first jellyfish president” (The Star, 28 February), that the club will promote “racial exclusion”.
Du Preez dismissed the FBJ on the grounds that its members “feel so insecure and inferior about their own abilities that they have to go and seek solace in a racially exclusive little club.” Other critics of the FBJ share similar views.
The second argument upon which the FBJ is criticised is that its members, by allowing Zuma to deliver an exclusive address to them, have voluntarily submitted themselves for political indoctrination.
Both arguments against the re-launch of the FBJ ignore the fact that other racially-exclusive clubs are allowed to operate without condemnation. Such clubs include the Jewish Board of Deputies, the Afri Forum and the Black Lawyers’ Association.
Members of the FBJ, including its chairperson Makue, must learn to stand their ground and continue to build the club so that the matters it was formed to focus on are given necessary attention.
Racism against black people is a global phenomenon and black people must organise themselves to tackle this. Blacks may be the majority in Africa, but, on a global scale, the black race is a minority race. The black race is also an underdog race.
Anywhere you go, from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, black people find themselves having to assert the fact that they too are human beings and deserve to live under conditions similar to those accorded to other races.
South Africa must give the FBJ a chance to re-launch and concentrate on matters that its members believe are of particular concern to its members.
In the free country we live in, no one stops white journalists from forming their own Forum for White Journalists, as proposed by Cliff Saunders in his letter, “Forum for White Journalists has much to talk about” (The Star, 27 February).
I’d like the critics of the FBJ to explain why the country must reject the blacks-only forum whilst the same country remains silent about (and at times even celebrate) the Afrikaners-only community of Orania.
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?
Monday, August 13, 2007
To Khutsong residents: You're not more South African
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 August 2007
Grade 12 pupils in Khutsong were this past weekend taken to a camp in Taung, in the North West Povince, where they are expected to catch-up on their school work, following months of school boycott.
All the drama follows uprisings in their township related to government’s decision to place their area under the administration of the North West Provincial Government.
The ugly situation in Khustong, which is attributed to the demarcation saga, is very sad if one considers the damage the dispute has brought not only to public property, but also to the future of learners in that area.
Those responsible for the chaos are setting a dangerous precedent, encouraging the use of force and disruptions to the smooth running of the country. Clearly, the people are being misled, and the misleader/s is/are getting away with murder.
What kind of a country are we living in, where children are denied access to education because the people of the area in which they live are embroiled in a conflict with government on demarcation issues? This is pure lawlessness. It is really disgusting.
How special are the people of Khutsong when it comes to service delivery? Whoever is responsible for the chaos (all in the name of “service delivery”) must know that all of South Africa ’s people, from Cape Town to Musina, have the same needs as they. They are not more South African than the rest of us.
In the municipality where I come from, the Greater Sekhukhune District Municipality in the Limpopo Province , people are in dire need of the very basic of services, ranging from clean water, electricity, tarred roads to schools. Most parts of Khutosng have all of that, but look what they are doing? It is shameful.
Not so long ago, black people were out on the streets, fighting for equal rights, amongst them the right to education. Today, 13 short years down the line, the same black people are out on the streets, preventing their own children from attending school. How quickly things change!
The prevention of learners from attending school is totally unbecoming in a country where the number of educated black people with post-graduate qualifications is still unacceptably low, where pass rate amongst Grade 12 learners went down last year.
Former President Nelson Mandela once described education as “the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”. Clearly, the people responsible for the chaos in Khutsong do not share the same view.
It is one thing to blame government for lack of proper consultation. It is quite another thing to make young children bear the high cost of such blame game and disagreements.
Because of the showdown between the so-called concerned residents and government, taxpayers' money is now being used to transport and accommodate children far away from the parental supervision they still need.
Imagine the sort of environment the learners have been moved to. Imagine adolescents staying in a camp far away from their parents. Instead of producing the good academic results they have been relocated to produce at the end of the year, some learners will produce positive pregnancy tests. All this because they have been forced out of their area by the very adults they are supposed to learn from.
All those responsible for preventing Khutsong learners from going to shcool must not only be ashamed of themselves, but they must also be held accountable for their highly disruptive behaviour. Shame on them.
Grade 12 pupils in Khutsong were this past weekend taken to a camp in Taung, in the North West Povince, where they are expected to catch-up on their school work, following months of school boycott.
All the drama follows uprisings in their township related to government’s decision to place their area under the administration of the North West Provincial Government.
The ugly situation in Khustong, which is attributed to the demarcation saga, is very sad if one considers the damage the dispute has brought not only to public property, but also to the future of learners in that area.
Those responsible for the chaos are setting a dangerous precedent, encouraging the use of force and disruptions to the smooth running of the country. Clearly, the people are being misled, and the misleader/s is/are getting away with murder.
What kind of a country are we living in, where children are denied access to education because the people of the area in which they live are embroiled in a conflict with government on demarcation issues? This is pure lawlessness. It is really disgusting.
How special are the people of Khutsong when it comes to service delivery? Whoever is responsible for the chaos (all in the name of “service delivery”) must know that all of South Africa ’s people, from Cape Town to Musina, have the same needs as they. They are not more South African than the rest of us.
In the municipality where I come from, the Greater Sekhukhune District Municipality in the Limpopo Province , people are in dire need of the very basic of services, ranging from clean water, electricity, tarred roads to schools. Most parts of Khutosng have all of that, but look what they are doing? It is shameful.
Not so long ago, black people were out on the streets, fighting for equal rights, amongst them the right to education. Today, 13 short years down the line, the same black people are out on the streets, preventing their own children from attending school. How quickly things change!
The prevention of learners from attending school is totally unbecoming in a country where the number of educated black people with post-graduate qualifications is still unacceptably low, where pass rate amongst Grade 12 learners went down last year.
Former President Nelson Mandela once described education as “the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”. Clearly, the people responsible for the chaos in Khutsong do not share the same view.
It is one thing to blame government for lack of proper consultation. It is quite another thing to make young children bear the high cost of such blame game and disagreements.
Because of the showdown between the so-called concerned residents and government, taxpayers' money is now being used to transport and accommodate children far away from the parental supervision they still need.
Imagine the sort of environment the learners have been moved to. Imagine adolescents staying in a camp far away from their parents. Instead of producing the good academic results they have been relocated to produce at the end of the year, some learners will produce positive pregnancy tests. All this because they have been forced out of their area by the very adults they are supposed to learn from.
All those responsible for preventing Khutsong learners from going to shcool must not only be ashamed of themselves, but they must also be held accountable for their highly disruptive behaviour. Shame on them.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Colonial and apartheid names must go -- now!
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 09 March 2007
In his letter in The Star newspaper, www.thestar.co.za, “Name changes are going to haunt us” (09 March 2007), Mqizilili Gamedze makes a number of regrettable conclusions about name changes in South Africa, guided by his apparent lack of both historical knowledge and understanding.
Gamedze says, for example, that: “Post-apartheid opportunities for the redress of racial imbalances have worked in [the ANC’s] favour, providing the impetus to perpetuate the lie: VIP toilets, BEE (whatever that means), African renaissance and, of course, ostensibly to rewrite this country’s history”.
Sounding like a perfect example of an apartheid apologist, Gamedze further writes: “Changing place names of historical significance to other population groups, even if that history is written in African blood, is against the spirit of reconciliation, which brought the ANC to power in the first place”.
Gamedze’s greatest deficiency is his unwillingness to accept that the twin systems of colonialism and apartheid have done so much damage to the pride of black people that the many colonial names still hanging around our country serve to remind us that blacks are still a conquered lot.
To pump some pride back into the black people – who now have achieved their age-old dream of self-governance – the question of renaming key landscapes such as airports, cities, roads, etc, is so critically important that non-action would, in my view, amount to negligence.
Gamedze may think we’ve already had more than enough name changes already, but I think we have done too little too late. We blacks still have a lot more colonial and apartheid names to get rid of: names such as East London, Port Elizabeth , Bloemfontein , King William’s Town, Port St Johns, etc.
We black people would be doing a great disservice to the pride of our great continent Africa if, in this era of black political rule, we become too complacent, too comfortable and too oblivious to worry about reclaiming our past and safeguarding our integrity.
The previous administrations have succeeded in instilling within black people a false sense Europeanism, of compulsorily having European names and promoting other Eurocentric beliefs and practices. Sometimes we black South Africans are accused by our own counterparts in other African countries of being easy convertibles.
Because of this false sense of Europeanism instilled within us by our previous masters, we still shun our own languages and even families. As the current political office bearers, we have a choice between maintaining a Eurocentric country, with all its European names (some of which as quite derogatory), and reclaiming our pride by getting rid of aparheid and colonial names.
An edited copy of this article appeared in The Star newspaper on 13 March 2007 under the headline, "Old place names remind us daily that blacks are a conquered lot", page 15.
Yes, but -- says a reader
Posted on 01 April 2007
I fully agree with the writer when he says "Colonial and apartheid names must go now!". However, one has to give consideration to the latest Supreme Court of Appeal decision that consultation is key in deciding whether these names should go or not.
It is my view that our hatred for the ills of the past undoubtedly overshadows our intentions to ensure that we do not repeat the excesses of the apartheid military junta that ruled in an autocratic manner. The will of the majority has to be considered through a consultative and inclusive process, enlisting the views of the Afrikaners and other interest groups even though we are clear that a minotiry of these groups are still clinging to our divided and racial past with passion.
Consultation might be challenging and demanding given the fact that most indigenous people, who unfortunately constitute the majority, do not have the necessary resources to make inputs in these processes as they are concerned with survival than lobbying. Remember, the majority of South Africans have been excluded from economic activity as result of the draconian laws of the previous racist regime that ensured that the historically oppressed, especially Africans, the most oppressed, do not even own property, let alone the means of production - the essence for survival. One must not forget that blacks in general and Africans in particular continue to bear the brunt of economic exclusion in South Africa despite the sterling efforts by the democratic government to integrate them to the mainstream economy.
These efforts of government, although noble, cannot transform over 350 years of colonialism and oppression over 12 years since 1994 - the year for the South African miracle where the poor compromised to ensure that there is peace in the Southern tip of Africa and this peace is for social cohesion and economic development for the benefit of the historically oppressed, especially the African majority that we said has no resources to engage in campaigns of this nature such as renaming towns, cities and institutions that remind us of our grim past.
Consultation is key and it requires us - myself, the writer and the rest - to be careful of becoming the copycats of Afrikanerdom and the imperialist agenda of failing to take into consideration the views of the minorities and the majorities that must be outlined to the public before we take the decisive actions of removing these sickening names from our new dispensation and replacing them with names understood and accepted by a major section of people that benefited from the Apartheid past. Sifiso Ndlazi
In his letter in The Star newspaper, www.thestar.co.za, “Name changes are going to haunt us” (09 March 2007), Mqizilili Gamedze makes a number of regrettable conclusions about name changes in South Africa, guided by his apparent lack of both historical knowledge and understanding.
Gamedze says, for example, that: “Post-apartheid opportunities for the redress of racial imbalances have worked in [the ANC’s] favour, providing the impetus to perpetuate the lie: VIP toilets, BEE (whatever that means), African renaissance and, of course, ostensibly to rewrite this country’s history”.
Sounding like a perfect example of an apartheid apologist, Gamedze further writes: “Changing place names of historical significance to other population groups, even if that history is written in African blood, is against the spirit of reconciliation, which brought the ANC to power in the first place”.
Gamedze’s greatest deficiency is his unwillingness to accept that the twin systems of colonialism and apartheid have done so much damage to the pride of black people that the many colonial names still hanging around our country serve to remind us that blacks are still a conquered lot.
To pump some pride back into the black people – who now have achieved their age-old dream of self-governance – the question of renaming key landscapes such as airports, cities, roads, etc, is so critically important that non-action would, in my view, amount to negligence.
Gamedze may think we’ve already had more than enough name changes already, but I think we have done too little too late. We blacks still have a lot more colonial and apartheid names to get rid of: names such as East London, Port Elizabeth , Bloemfontein , King William’s Town, Port St Johns, etc.
We black people would be doing a great disservice to the pride of our great continent Africa if, in this era of black political rule, we become too complacent, too comfortable and too oblivious to worry about reclaiming our past and safeguarding our integrity.
The previous administrations have succeeded in instilling within black people a false sense Europeanism, of compulsorily having European names and promoting other Eurocentric beliefs and practices. Sometimes we black South Africans are accused by our own counterparts in other African countries of being easy convertibles.
Because of this false sense of Europeanism instilled within us by our previous masters, we still shun our own languages and even families. As the current political office bearers, we have a choice between maintaining a Eurocentric country, with all its European names (some of which as quite derogatory), and reclaiming our pride by getting rid of aparheid and colonial names.
An edited copy of this article appeared in The Star newspaper on 13 March 2007 under the headline, "Old place names remind us daily that blacks are a conquered lot", page 15.
Yes, but -- says a reader
Posted on 01 April 2007
I fully agree with the writer when he says "Colonial and apartheid names must go now!". However, one has to give consideration to the latest Supreme Court of Appeal decision that consultation is key in deciding whether these names should go or not.
It is my view that our hatred for the ills of the past undoubtedly overshadows our intentions to ensure that we do not repeat the excesses of the apartheid military junta that ruled in an autocratic manner. The will of the majority has to be considered through a consultative and inclusive process, enlisting the views of the Afrikaners and other interest groups even though we are clear that a minotiry of these groups are still clinging to our divided and racial past with passion.
Consultation might be challenging and demanding given the fact that most indigenous people, who unfortunately constitute the majority, do not have the necessary resources to make inputs in these processes as they are concerned with survival than lobbying. Remember, the majority of South Africans have been excluded from economic activity as result of the draconian laws of the previous racist regime that ensured that the historically oppressed, especially Africans, the most oppressed, do not even own property, let alone the means of production - the essence for survival. One must not forget that blacks in general and Africans in particular continue to bear the brunt of economic exclusion in South Africa despite the sterling efforts by the democratic government to integrate them to the mainstream economy.
These efforts of government, although noble, cannot transform over 350 years of colonialism and oppression over 12 years since 1994 - the year for the South African miracle where the poor compromised to ensure that there is peace in the Southern tip of Africa and this peace is for social cohesion and economic development for the benefit of the historically oppressed, especially the African majority that we said has no resources to engage in campaigns of this nature such as renaming towns, cities and institutions that remind us of our grim past.
Consultation is key and it requires us - myself, the writer and the rest - to be careful of becoming the copycats of Afrikanerdom and the imperialist agenda of failing to take into consideration the views of the minorities and the majorities that must be outlined to the public before we take the decisive actions of removing these sickening names from our new dispensation and replacing them with names understood and accepted by a major section of people that benefited from the Apartheid past. Sifiso Ndlazi
Monday, February 26, 2007
Wrong to portray blacks as criminals
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 26 February 2007
In his opinion article, “The dangers of racial profiling” (The Star, 26 February 2007), Rich Mkhondo asks the critical question: “Is racial profiling or stereotyping a necessary tool to protect our communities from crime?”
The answer really depends on who you are. Those with a right-wing mentality would most likely agree with racial profiling or stereotyping or both, whilst democrats would oppose the idea.
Black people here in South Africa and around the world are still seen as the main perpetrators of crime, wars, corruption, fraud, etc. This perception is enforced by black people’s lack a popular medium through which they can claim innocence.
After 13 years of freedom and democracy in South Africa, our media is still a vehicle to glorify the white man, portray him as the target of some inhuman black people. The black man is still the subject of horrific headlines.
Media propaganda still reigns in favour of white people. More black faces are seemingly at the forefront of many major media houses, but the white man still has the final say. The boardroom wields much more power than the newsroom.
As a result, the media is still a vehicle to promote white interests. We have panic buttons pressed when a white man is attacked, but many black lives are brutally eliminated without any mention.
Portraying crime as a black-versus-white issue smacks of irresponsibility. Everyone could fall victim to crime anytime, and the perpetrator could belong to any race.
As Mkhondo correctly stated, “Racial stereotyping is a lazy way of labelling people”.
We black people may be holding political power, but we still endure a lot of public humiliation. In the malls and other public places, we still get nasty looks, with members of other races seeing us as some brutal parasites, unable to think constructively and mentally inferior.
Is this the freedom our elders have so tirelessly fought for?
In his opinion article, “The dangers of racial profiling” (The Star, 26 February 2007), Rich Mkhondo asks the critical question: “Is racial profiling or stereotyping a necessary tool to protect our communities from crime?”
The answer really depends on who you are. Those with a right-wing mentality would most likely agree with racial profiling or stereotyping or both, whilst democrats would oppose the idea.
Black people here in South Africa and around the world are still seen as the main perpetrators of crime, wars, corruption, fraud, etc. This perception is enforced by black people’s lack a popular medium through which they can claim innocence.
After 13 years of freedom and democracy in South Africa, our media is still a vehicle to glorify the white man, portray him as the target of some inhuman black people. The black man is still the subject of horrific headlines.
Media propaganda still reigns in favour of white people. More black faces are seemingly at the forefront of many major media houses, but the white man still has the final say. The boardroom wields much more power than the newsroom.
As a result, the media is still a vehicle to promote white interests. We have panic buttons pressed when a white man is attacked, but many black lives are brutally eliminated without any mention.
Portraying crime as a black-versus-white issue smacks of irresponsibility. Everyone could fall victim to crime anytime, and the perpetrator could belong to any race.
As Mkhondo correctly stated, “Racial stereotyping is a lazy way of labelling people”.
We black people may be holding political power, but we still endure a lot of public humiliation. In the malls and other public places, we still get nasty looks, with members of other races seeing us as some brutal parasites, unable to think constructively and mentally inferior.
Is this the freedom our elders have so tirelessly fought for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
