Are you concerned about 'animal cruelty'?

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 21 September 2007

1. Introduction

Readres of the daily right-wing newspaper, The Citizen, won't let me get away with accusing them of being concerned more about cruelty to animals than cruelty to black people.

Published below is the letter I wrote to the right-wing newspaper, followed by the readers' responses -- also published by The Citizen.

2. My letter, as published by The Citizen on 10 Sept. 2007

THERE is one thing I can’t figure out among many readers of The Citizen – and I would like honest answers to this.

These readers are very concerned about cruelty to animals, but they keep silent when cruelty is unleashed against human beings – particularly when the perpetrator is white and the victim is black.

How dare you express outrage when a dog is injured and keep mum when a white farmer shoots his employee and argues that he mistook him for a dog, for example?

Is the life of a dog more important than the life of a black person in a country where the majority of the population is black?

3. Readers' responses

3.1. Animal abuse is worse

Madibeng Kgwete, there is no excuse for shooting anyone, no matter what their colour. “Mistook him for a dog” is a lot of hogwash. But anyone who mistreats animals is worse. Remember how outraged the public were with the fireworks issue, blowing dogs’ rectums to pieces? If you abuse animals you should be treated the same. A murderer should be given a death sentence. –BRIAN (Johannesburg)

3.2. And farm murders?

Your story is so typical of the worn-out, one-sided, racist mindset that black people love to display. I say how dare you express outrage at readers showing more concern about cruelty to animals than to blacks? But in turn you have remained silent on the cruel murders black perpetrators commit on white farmers each day. Maybe you feel they deserve it, and maybe the whites siding with the plight of animals feel so too. -- REALIST (Brackenhurst)

To be honest, we've dumped Biko’s philosophy

The same black people who go around preaching “Black Consciousness” have deserted their indigenous African languages. They are proud that their kids can't speak any language other than English!

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 13 September 2007

Perhaps the saddest thing about the celebrations marking the 30th Anniversary of the death of the leader of the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM), Steven Bantu Biko, is that they coincide with a period in which blacks are becoming their own greatest enemies.

In Biko’s own words: “We do not want to be reminded that it is we, the indigenous people, who are poor and exploited in the land of our birth. These are concepts which the Black Consciousness approach wishes to eradicate from the black man's mind before our society is driven to chaos by irresponsible people from Coca-cola and hamburger cultural backgrounds."

Today, 13 short years after the attainment of freedom and democracy in South Africa, “the irresponsible people from Coca-cola and hamburger cultural backgrounds” have had the upper hand. Black people are proud when their children cannot speak a single African indigenous language. Speaking English is the new measure of wisdom!

To be honest, we black people in the new South Africa – including those in Biko’s movement, the Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO) – have dumped Biko’s philosophy of black consciousness. Talk about being black and proud and you’ll be called a “counter-racist” that is unappreciative of Nelson Mandela’s great reconciliation efforts.

Name-changes: where do you stand?

A refined copy of my article, "The lobby opposed to name-changed is deceitful”, (posted here on Pro-Africa Analysis 04 September 2007 and published on the News24 website on 06 September 2007) attracted a wide range of responses. The following are some of the responses as they appeared below my article, 'Don’t delay name-changes’:

1. Those who agree with me on name-changes say …

1.1. At first when I heard of name changes I thought what a waste of time, but when u take a harder look I think it needs to be done. We take our street names for granted, not understanding the significance, eg Durbans Smith, West,Russell,Grey streets, they are all named after apartheid contributors,we need names that is relevant to South Africans,our history, & struggle which takes contributions of all races into consideration. – ayesha

1.2. Very well said, Madibeng. I've always found it ironic that people opposed to name-change, those who argue that it is a waste of time are invariably not black Africans, invariably middle-class. One wonders why they shout so loudly for "service delivery" ostensibly in the name of the poor. altruism? I think not – me

1.3. Never thought it that way. But you are right. Name change is indeed a delivery issue. People's dignity is so important that if you look through the history of human kind where there was an oppressor, their names have been removed because of the insulting connotation it carries. There is a reason why Hitler street is not to be found in Germany, Israel or even the USA. Influence of Mussolini in Italy is limited. India has adopted native names for their cities. Well written and well said. I am poor and want change - Len v Heerden

1.4. Viva Name Changes: It's the only way forward. Viva to name changes. Amazing how white folks suddenly become aware of service deliveries. It's like their senses have resurrected after centuries of hibernation throughout colonialism & apartheid. During which they became deaf and blind to other peoples sufferings. – VivaNameChange

1.5. I think what Madibeng is trying to say, and I take the writer's point, is that whether we change the names or not, it will not affect the service delivery in other areas. There wont be more manpower or more money for introducing running water if we decide not to re-name streets as other departments have their own inept people and the same budget regardless. Bit of perspective please. – Johno

1.6. Even though I am dead against name changes (yes, as a White Afrikaner), I find Madibeng's argument well-written and cannot fault his logic. As I see it, he does not advocate name changes IN STEAD of service delivery, but rather as PART OF it. Right? - cedb00

2. And those who disagree with me say …

2.1. Pride and identity: Yeah right, the poor need pride and identity. Maybe you have a place to sleep tonite and a full stomach when you do so, maybe you should sit without a job for a year, sleep on newspaper in a shack, eat whatever you can swallow .... then tell me about prie and identity. When do you want to start changing the name of Mercedes Benz and BMW, when do you want to start changing the nams of all the planets? Grow up and get positive, get real, start seriously providing a life for the poor. - Blah blah

2.2. How far do you want to go back? Mr Kgwete You end your letter with: "Are we forgetting our pre-colonial history?" Might I remind you that you are very selective in when the pre-colonial timeline starts. Scientific evidence have proven that first Homo sapiens in South Africa where the Khoi and San people. All the so-called black Africans migrated from central Africa. So why don't we allow the Khoi and San people to lay claim to all their land and name all the places? Or are we forgetting our pre-migration history? – Jonix

2.3. Easy to sit in the lap of luxury and speak on behalf of the homeless masses isn't it Madibeng. Take an opinion poll and see if the people want houses and infrastructure or new name sign boards. They care not for the quotes of Franz Fanon. – Tubz

2.4. Im sure if you ask a poor person if they want their town to be renamed or whether they would like clean running water or electricity, they would choose the latter. Lets get our priorities straight, then we can change then names to whatever we want. – JB

2.5. Have you lost it??? People die daily in SA because of a lack of nutrition, water and shelter. Who died of living in a city where the name is not to their liking??? Does your fellow South Africans mean so little to you that you would rather see them perish in a newly named city instead of having a fighting chance. Your attitude towards this country and it's citizens make me sick! Get lost. – Johan

2.6. I'm sorry, service delivery does not include name changes; i fail to see how this will benefit anyone living without proper sanitation. Madibeng you fail to realise or maybe don't want to realise that european people also played a part in forming what South Africa is today, so when you change names you are also stripping them of their heritage. Some names should be changed but not on the scale government is doing it...its a free for all. We all want to be proud of OUR COUNTRY. – Trevor

2.7. Madibeng, you make some good points, or at least get your appoint across quite clearly so i assume you're an intellectual. Well, tell me this: how does changing a place's name feed the hungry in that area, educate the children, care for the sick, develop the economy? Pride doesn't provide! Is wanting to provide the basic necessities being materialistic? What world do you really come from? – Gareth

2.8. So are you saying spending millions on changing names is far more important than addressing poverty, feeding the hungry and taking care of aids orphans, Madibeng? Get real! So a name changes, then what??? Big deal! Find some other frivolous thing to spend money on, while the underpriveledged are STILL out there starving??? You are hilarious! – Mike

2.9. I gather from the fact that the author has internet access, from his wide reading and his use of complicated words that he is quite well off. Yet he comments that name change is just as important as service delivery. He should tell that to the people in Protea South. They are most certainly not throwing rocks at journalists and setting fire to a councillor's house because they demand name changes to be made! – Dewald

• Please visit the following link for the whole debate: http://www.news24.com/News24/MyNews24/Letters/0,,2-2127-2129_2178406,00.html

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?

Criticism leveled at Mbeki is not uncommon

History is pregnant with many examples of leaders who come under severe criticsm in their final years in office

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 29 August 2007

The unfair generalisations contained in the letter by Andy Beytell, “On issues from A to Z, ‘racist’ Mbeki gets an F”, (The Star, 28 August 2007), explain a common phenomenon in countries where leaders are in their final years of office. This phenomenon is characterised mainly by severe criticism leveled at the leader and an impatient desire for change.

The recent outpouring of criticism leveled at President Thabo Mbeki from various stakeholders, including members of the Tripartite Alliance he leads, is not uncommon, particularly when one considers the fact that the president has less than two years before his term of office comes to an end.

History is pregnant with many examples of leaders who come under severe criticism in their final years in office. And the criticism usually ignores the fact that the leader is not running the country by himself, that he is serving in a collective and that he is carrying out a mandate normally sanctioned by the ruling party.

Take, for example, the case of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He was pressurised out of office before the end of his term as Prime Minister in a rebellion championed by his Labour Party comrades. His sin? He, with the support of the same comrades in the British Parliament, took his county into an illegal war in Iraq .

Considering the politicking that goes with the run-up to the December conference of the African National Congress (ANC), where Mbeki’s successor may be elected, it is not surprising that our society’s desire for change often (and deliberately) ignores Mbeki’s strengths and achievements.
Our obsession with the succession battle going on in the ANC, coupled with our highly impatient wait for a new leadership at government level, renders many of us unfit to provide any fair assessment of Mbeki’s leadership.

His imperfections on the Aids pandemic not withstanding, Mbeki has led South Africa with unmatched skill, unique diplomacy, high intellect and dignity. Under Mbeki’s watch, our economy has grown (though not enough to satisfy everyone’s needs) and our country has broadened its influence internationally.

Many of Mbeki’s critics hate the fact that the president is more knowledgeable than they are. These armchair critics, many of whom are half-baked, hate it more when Mbeki hits back through his popular online letter in the ANC Today newsletter.

They want the President to sit back and take punches, but not only does he refuse to oblige, but he also exposes the hypocrisy of his critics and the racist pessimism they often seek to advance. Even his harshest critics will miss Mbeki when he joins the list of former African heads of states and government.

Beytell quotes Stephen Mulholland who is said to have written that Mbeki was "bitter, narrow-minded, vainglorious, officious, arrogant, pompous and racist". Yet the same can be said of Mulholland, one of the critics who cannot see any good in all of Mbeki’s work. What single positive thing has Mulholland said about Mbeki?

In evaluating Mbeki’s performance, critics must put the ANC succession battle aside and see the facts: like every human being in the world, the President has not perfected every aspect of his work, but he has led the country (and, to a degree, the African continent) with distinction.

• An edited copy of this article appeared in The Star newspaper on 13 August 2007 under the headline, “Criticism of a leader in final years in office is common”.

'A view of the summit': objections to my views

Online readers of the British newspaper, The Guardian, raise objections to my take on the political and economic situation in Zimbabwe.

Background

The British newspaper, The Guardian, runs a popular blog called “Comment is Free (CiF)” on its website, http://www.guardian.co.uk/. On Monday, 20 August 2007, one John M. Morrison wrote an article, “A view of the summit”, based on the summit of the SADC heads of state and government, held in Lusaka, Zambia. Morrison, a former foreign correspondent who was based in Zimbabwe from 1987 to 1990, mainly argued in his article that “African leaders meeting in Zambia proved all too adept at ignoring the ongoing disaster of Mugabe's Zimbabwe”.

My initial response to Morrison was the following: “For a man who is said to have reported from Zimbabwe for three years, it is baffling that Mr Morrision does not know what SADC stands for. Amongst other falsehoods in his article, Mr Morrison writes about ‘last week's Southern African Development Society (SADC)’! SADC correctly stands for the Southern African Development Community. Mr. Morrison must firstly get his facts right before we take him seriously”.

Morrison wasted no time in clarifying this: “I never called SADC the Southern African Development Society. These are minor errors which have crept in during editing. Subeditors (even at the revered Guardian) aren't perfect, as I know because I was a subeditor for many years”. Then followed other responses to my comments, published below as they appeared in the CiF blog.

1. 'SADC stands for Southern African Despots Club'

By DrJazz, Comment No. 769321

Madibeng: You should know that SADC stands for Southern African Despots Club. It does amongst black Zimbabweans. And they only speak of Mbeki to curse him. The economic problems started in earnest in 1997 when Mugabe gave the entire annual take from income tax to war veterans in the form of life pensions. Even war veterans in well paid jobs benefited. I have no idea why he did it, although I do know it was in response to unrest resulting from the elite helping themselves to the secret War Victims Compenation Fund.

2. 'See the facts, you the apologist for Mugabe'

By Sikandarji, Comment No. 769689

Madibeng: well DrJazz did suggest that things started to go badly wrong in 1997 when Mugabe gave the entire tax revenues to the 'War veterans', but presumably you overlooked this. In fact there were ominous signs well before: the Matabeleland massacres in the early 80s which I mentioned, his attempt to turn Zimbabwe into a one-party state in the late 80s when he also combined the offices of President and Prime Minister in one person (i.e. himself) and, yes, the so-called land 'reforms'. What you and other apologists for Mugabe overlook when you bleat on about Britain's failure to pay compensation to farmers for land redistribution is that Britain did fund such a scheme in the 80s', only to terminate it when it emerged that all the land purchased from farmers under this scheme ended up in the pockets of ZANU-PF politicians. Sound familiar?

It should, because of course when the land seizures did get underway in earnest in the late 90s, only a tiny proportion went to the poor and landless. All that has happened is that a wealthy white minority has been replaced with an equally wealthy but far less productive black oligarchy. You can call that 'progress' if you want, but the four million Zimbabweans (almost all of them black) who have been forced to flee the land they love might disagree. Perhaps more than anything else it is this which gives the lie to the feeble pretence amongst African leaders (which you appear to share) that criticism of Mugabe's regime in the West is motivated purely by racist concern for the welfare of the white minority. If that were ever the case, the battle was lost long ago.

There are only about 20,000 whites left in Zimbabwe, and the farming sector has been destroyed. There are at least two million Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa - why don't you ask them what they think of Mugabe's 'reforms', his handling of the economy? If you really think that life in Zimbabwe (where the land has been 'liberated' and 'returned to the people') is better than life in South Africa (where you complain that 80% of the land is controlled by the white minority) then why don't you go and see for yourself? Or even stay there? You might find a lot of people rushing in the opposite direction, but I'm sure the roads leading to Beitbridge and beyond will be pretty free of traffic.

3. 'Mugabe’s critics don’t want to keep land in white hands'

By Gareth100, Comment No. 769747

madibeng, I would suggest that all people in the west would like is for Zimbabwe (and many other African countries) to be run by people who have the interests of all their countrymen at heart, rather than an opportunity for personal enrichment for the leaders and their cronies. Not too much to ask is it? Surely the number of Zimbabweans fleeing into South Africa would suggest that something is gravely wrong? The question of returning the land to the black community is a complex one but surely it benefits no one if it contributes to the collapse of the economy? As for the 2002 elections being "free and fair", even the SADC voiced misgivings over the process, the only country not to voice concerns was South Africa, I wonder why?

4. ‘No country on earth has prospered from a peasant economy’

By DrJazz, Comment No. 770085

Madibeng: I don't want to take punitive action against Mugabe's regime. What I would like is for SADC to ensure that free and fair elections are held in Zimbabwe under a new constitution that doesn't give the President the power to appoint one fifth of parliament.

Zimbabwe went seriously wrong, as opposed to gradually wrong, with the award of unaffordable pensions to 50,000 war veterans in late 1997. They received the whole of the take from Income Tax. How much worse can you get? The ZimDollar halved in value overnight and continued the downward trend as the government printed money and entered the Congo war (so magabe could upstage Mandela, or so he thought). The next turning point was when Mugabe rejected the offer of finacial assistance from the inetrnational community for a transparent and fair land reform programme.

The next major turning point came in 2000 with the referendum on a new constitution which Mugabe lost. It was probably the only free and fair election in the history of Zimbabwe. That's why there was election rigging in the parliamentary elections a few months later which Mugabe narrowly 'won.' There were successful appeals to the courts against some of the results of that election, but the appeal process was allowed to kick in but was never resolved. In the 2002 Presidential elections there was even more rigging.

The critics do not want to keep land in white hands. They want it given to black FARMERS who would contnue to employ the hundreds of thousands of farm workers and continue to produce food and produce for export. Not Mugabe's cronies who can't/won't farm, or landless peasants who can barely support themselves from their small plots. A simple calculation shows there isn't sufficient land in Zimbabwe to support the peasant way of life.

No country on earth has prospered from a peasant economy. Small farmers in Europe have to be propped up by subsidies and second or third jobs.

• Visit the link, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_morrison/2007/08/a_view_of_the_summit.html,for the full debate on Mr. Morrison’s article.

Substance abuse in South Africa

It’s time we stop pointing fingers at government

By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 22 August 2007

Commenting on a radio talk show the other day regarding causes of road rage in South Africa, a caller blamed government for not deploying enough policemen on the roads. Road rage, the caller argued, would be avoided if government committed more resources to ensuring visible policing on the roads.

Fairly speaking, government has a constitutional responsibility to ensure the safety of citizens. However, much of the discourse relating to road carnage, crime and substance abuse neglects mention of citizens’ responsibilities. Now, research has revealed not only the extend of substance abuse amongst South Africans, but it has also highlighted the high costs of such abuse.

The World Drug Report of 2006 puts the number of “problem drug users” in South Africa at more than 200 000. A 1998 report by the Medical Research Council noted that South Africans consume “well over five billion litres of alcoholic beverage per year”.

The Minister of Social Development, Dr. Zola Skweyiya, has recently estimated that alcohol abuse is a factor in nearly half of road crashes. This, according to Skweyiya, results in a cost to the country of around 7 000 lives annually.

The alarming figures of substance abuse beg for a nationwide introspection, an analysis of the high rate of crime in South Africa in relation to substance abuse and the overall moral degradation in our society. More importantly, the alarming figures call for action from government, non-governmental organisations, religious organisations and individuals.

With regard to the role of individuals in combating drug and alcohol abuse, Dr. Skweyiya put it correctly thus: “The abuse of drugs and alcohol is influenced by the degree of tolerance by citizens in a particular country. The promotion of the perception, for example, that the use of dagga is not harmful, or that excessive or binge drinking is acceptable behaviour over weekends, undermines all efforts of combating this scourge”.

Apart from urging individuals to behave more responsibly in relation to the use of substances, government has drafted a new bill called the Prevention of and Treatment of Substance Abuse Bill this month, August. The Bill, once passed into a law, will replace the Prevention and Treatment of Drug Dependency Act of 1992.

However little government is doing to prevent and combat substance abuse, much of the blame and responsibility should be put right on the door of individuals, for they (and not government) are the ones who initiate the abuse. Government will not succeed in lowering the high crime rate if our society continues to tolerate substance abuse.