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.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
No looming race war in South Africa
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 26 April 2010
Attempts to link Terre’blanche’s death to a looming “machete war” were part of a scare-mongering campaign aimed at discrediting South Africa ahead of the 2010 FIFA World Cup
Fears that a race war would erupt in South Africa following the death in April of South Africa’s notorious white supremacist, Eugene Terre’blanche, sought to sow mistrust amongst the country’s various racial groupings whilst at the same scaring off visitors coming for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, which takes place from 11 June to 11 July 2010.
Following Terre’blanche’s murder, various media houses concluded, prematurely and with little familiarity regarding contemporary politics in post-apartheid South Africa, that there would be a violent backlash from the white South African farming community. The warnings were far-fetched, of course.
The United Kingdom’s Daily Star tabloid led the charge with a false story, warning England football fans not to travel to South Africa for the 2010 FIFA World Cup – the first to be hosted in Africa – because of a looming “machete war” expected to be sparked by Terre’blanche’s death.
An opinion article in The Guardian said Terre’blanche’s murder signaled the death of “the era of Nelson Mandela”, adding that South Africa’s constitution – described as “arguably the most liberal document in the world” – allowed “political space for dissidents and dinosaurs” alike.
What the newspapers omitted to mention, though, is the unity of South Africans across all racial groupings in their condemnation of crime, irrespective of who the perpetrators are. It is therefore not surprising that various attempts to link Terre’blanche’s death to racial tensions were unsuccessful.
What many people outside South Africa do not realise is the speed with which the country has moved in overcoming racial tensions of the apartheid era. Political efforts to bury the apartheid ghost have been followed up, concretely, by the crafting and implementation of various pieces of progressive legislations aimed at consolidating South Africa’s democratic dispensation.
South Africa’s legal establishment has matured considerably over the last 16 years of freedom. And political maturity and tolerance, even in the midst of the most divisive of topics, has been the hallmark of the country’s new democratic order. It’s not all perfect, but general adherence to (and equality before) the law cuts across race, politics and class.
South Africa is a nation, as former President Nelson Mandela put it, “at peace within itself”. There are no fundamental disagreements amongst the various racial groupings. We face common challenges: crime, unemployment, corruption, poverty, the spread of diseases and many other social ills. And we share common aspirations as well: peace, justice and prosperity.
The insistence by many critics in the West that South Africans, particularly the black majority, should keep to Mandela’s reconciliatory tone is divorced from the realities under which the previously oppressed population still lives. Demands for faster and genuine economic transformation are often wrongly and unfairly dismissed as attempts to dispossess whites of their material assets.
The critics in the West are amplifying the fears of some white South Africans in what is unmistakably more a case of racial solidarity than a demand for social justice and equality for all. They keep reminding the black population not to deviate from Mandela’s dream of racial unity only for selfish reasons – to keep the status quo in as far as the economy is concerned.
Racial harmony is good for peaceful coexistence, yes; but you can’t eat reconciliation. Even after you’ve forgiven and forgotten, you still need to survive – to feed yourself and your family. The media-driven scare-mongering that followed Terre’blanche’s murder does not reflect fairly the feelings of black and white South Africans towards each other.
It’s all just a campaign to discredit South Africa ahead of its historic hosting of the first FIFA World Cup on the African continent. There are continuing attempts to perpetuate the myth that nothing good can ever come out of Africa. It’s a colonial-era mentality that all Africans, at home and in the diaspora, must unite to dismiss.
Attempts to link Terre’blanche’s death to a looming “machete war” were part of a scare-mongering campaign aimed at discrediting South Africa ahead of the 2010 FIFA World Cup
Fears that a race war would erupt in South Africa following the death in April of South Africa’s notorious white supremacist, Eugene Terre’blanche, sought to sow mistrust amongst the country’s various racial groupings whilst at the same scaring off visitors coming for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, which takes place from 11 June to 11 July 2010.
Following Terre’blanche’s murder, various media houses concluded, prematurely and with little familiarity regarding contemporary politics in post-apartheid South Africa, that there would be a violent backlash from the white South African farming community. The warnings were far-fetched, of course.
The United Kingdom’s Daily Star tabloid led the charge with a false story, warning England football fans not to travel to South Africa for the 2010 FIFA World Cup – the first to be hosted in Africa – because of a looming “machete war” expected to be sparked by Terre’blanche’s death.
An opinion article in The Guardian said Terre’blanche’s murder signaled the death of “the era of Nelson Mandela”, adding that South Africa’s constitution – described as “arguably the most liberal document in the world” – allowed “political space for dissidents and dinosaurs” alike.
What the newspapers omitted to mention, though, is the unity of South Africans across all racial groupings in their condemnation of crime, irrespective of who the perpetrators are. It is therefore not surprising that various attempts to link Terre’blanche’s death to racial tensions were unsuccessful.
What many people outside South Africa do not realise is the speed with which the country has moved in overcoming racial tensions of the apartheid era. Political efforts to bury the apartheid ghost have been followed up, concretely, by the crafting and implementation of various pieces of progressive legislations aimed at consolidating South Africa’s democratic dispensation.
South Africa’s legal establishment has matured considerably over the last 16 years of freedom. And political maturity and tolerance, even in the midst of the most divisive of topics, has been the hallmark of the country’s new democratic order. It’s not all perfect, but general adherence to (and equality before) the law cuts across race, politics and class.
South Africa is a nation, as former President Nelson Mandela put it, “at peace within itself”. There are no fundamental disagreements amongst the various racial groupings. We face common challenges: crime, unemployment, corruption, poverty, the spread of diseases and many other social ills. And we share common aspirations as well: peace, justice and prosperity.
The insistence by many critics in the West that South Africans, particularly the black majority, should keep to Mandela’s reconciliatory tone is divorced from the realities under which the previously oppressed population still lives. Demands for faster and genuine economic transformation are often wrongly and unfairly dismissed as attempts to dispossess whites of their material assets.
The critics in the West are amplifying the fears of some white South Africans in what is unmistakably more a case of racial solidarity than a demand for social justice and equality for all. They keep reminding the black population not to deviate from Mandela’s dream of racial unity only for selfish reasons – to keep the status quo in as far as the economy is concerned.
Racial harmony is good for peaceful coexistence, yes; but you can’t eat reconciliation. Even after you’ve forgiven and forgotten, you still need to survive – to feed yourself and your family. The media-driven scare-mongering that followed Terre’blanche’s murder does not reflect fairly the feelings of black and white South Africans towards each other.
It’s all just a campaign to discredit South Africa ahead of its historic hosting of the first FIFA World Cup on the African continent. There are continuing attempts to perpetuate the myth that nothing good can ever come out of Africa. It’s a colonial-era mentality that all Africans, at home and in the diaspora, must unite to dismiss.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Stop the scare-mongering, face facts
If entrepreneurs want to cash in on the World Cup, let them do so using the creativity of their minds instead of dehumanising and insulting us.
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 19 January 2010
Not surprisingly, many of the news reports on the historic World Cup taking place in South Africa this winter are not about the core business of the tournament, football.
The headlines are not as concerned about the beautiful game as they are about scare-mongering, accompanied by stories of such alien inventions as “stab-proof” vests.
One wonders why because, even as we all admit that crime is a problem in South Africa, no reasonable person really expects the World Cup to be marred by throngs of knife-wielding gangs, ready to stab anyone they come across.
South Africa has hosted many international sporting events before, such as the Rugby World Cup, the Africa Cup of Nations, the Cricket World Cup and, very recently, the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup.
All of these events went smoothly and largely incident-free not only because the police had good plans. We, the people – South Africans of all races, united in our diversity – are generally a welcoming lot, renowned worldwide for our generosity of spirit and our warmth.
We don’t deny that there are criminals amongst us. In fact, we – and not the occasional travelers – understand this country better. We are too familiar with the agony caused by crime.
Whereas we are the ones mostly affected, we also know (and statistics can prove it) that most criminals are known to their victims. We’re talking here of relatives, friends, neighbours, colleagues and business partners, for example, committing gruesome crimes amongst each other.
And, of course, there are those opportunistic ones who go for the vulnerable: the tourists, children, the elderly and the negligent. But here we’re talking about security arrangements for an event that we’ve known for years that it is coming to South Africa.
The police know how many teams we expect, how many people per team, where these teams will be staying, their travel routes, etc. And, because you have to buy a ticket before coming here, the police will also know how many fans to expect from every corner of the globe.
We shouldn’t confuse acts of criminality directed at ordinary people on an ongoing basis and acts of criminality aimed at people attending an event. An event is planned for in advance, and our police have a proud track record in this regard.
The underlying message by the scare-mongers is one of great insult to the hosts: South Africans and Africans in general. We’re hungry, yes, but not for human flesh. We’re poor; many amongst us are even sick, but not sick in our heads.
If entrepreneurs want to cash in on the World Cup, let them do so using the creativity of their minds instead of dehumanising and insulting us.
Wouldn’t it be great if, once and for all, this World Cup becomes the platform through which the world can recognise Africans as equal human beings, capable of all that which man elsewhere is capable of, and as faulty as human beings everywhere else are faulty?
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 19 January 2010
Not surprisingly, many of the news reports on the historic World Cup taking place in South Africa this winter are not about the core business of the tournament, football.
The headlines are not as concerned about the beautiful game as they are about scare-mongering, accompanied by stories of such alien inventions as “stab-proof” vests.
One wonders why because, even as we all admit that crime is a problem in South Africa, no reasonable person really expects the World Cup to be marred by throngs of knife-wielding gangs, ready to stab anyone they come across.
South Africa has hosted many international sporting events before, such as the Rugby World Cup, the Africa Cup of Nations, the Cricket World Cup and, very recently, the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup.
All of these events went smoothly and largely incident-free not only because the police had good plans. We, the people – South Africans of all races, united in our diversity – are generally a welcoming lot, renowned worldwide for our generosity of spirit and our warmth.
We don’t deny that there are criminals amongst us. In fact, we – and not the occasional travelers – understand this country better. We are too familiar with the agony caused by crime.
Whereas we are the ones mostly affected, we also know (and statistics can prove it) that most criminals are known to their victims. We’re talking here of relatives, friends, neighbours, colleagues and business partners, for example, committing gruesome crimes amongst each other.
And, of course, there are those opportunistic ones who go for the vulnerable: the tourists, children, the elderly and the negligent. But here we’re talking about security arrangements for an event that we’ve known for years that it is coming to South Africa.
The police know how many teams we expect, how many people per team, where these teams will be staying, their travel routes, etc. And, because you have to buy a ticket before coming here, the police will also know how many fans to expect from every corner of the globe.
We shouldn’t confuse acts of criminality directed at ordinary people on an ongoing basis and acts of criminality aimed at people attending an event. An event is planned for in advance, and our police have a proud track record in this regard.
The underlying message by the scare-mongers is one of great insult to the hosts: South Africans and Africans in general. We’re hungry, yes, but not for human flesh. We’re poor; many amongst us are even sick, but not sick in our heads.
If entrepreneurs want to cash in on the World Cup, let them do so using the creativity of their minds instead of dehumanising and insulting us.
Wouldn’t it be great if, once and for all, this World Cup becomes the platform through which the world can recognise Africans as equal human beings, capable of all that which man elsewhere is capable of, and as faulty as human beings everywhere else are faulty?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Healing apartheid wounds
Why are we being urged to bury the past by people who are seemingly not willing to do likewise?
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 21 September 2009
The massive reaction to the News24 article by one Wayne G, "Our own Animal Farm" (16 September 2009), indicate two things to me: that South Africans not only want to debate the current state of race relations in the country, but also that they have a desire to know and understand each other.
Wayne speaks from the perspective of a frustrated white youth, and he raises a lot of questions and concerns that should not be ignored.
Amongst other things, Wayne blames the media for perpetuating racist stereotypes against whites, arguing that newspapers aggravate race relations “through their constant focus on the loud mouths of our country [such as Julius Malema, who exploit] our differences to sell papers.”
As a black youth myself, there are a number of factors that I wish the likes of Wayne took into consideration when analysing the state of racial integration (or lack thereof) in post-apartheid South Africa; and here’s what I wish we all start realising:
1. Trying to understand black people whilst constantly bashing the ANC is not a good start. After all, the ANC is credited within the black community for having liberated black people from the shackles of apartheid.
2. Needless to say, not all black South Africans support the ANC. In fact, the success of the official opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, is in part due to the massive support that the party received from a substantial pool of black voters across the country.
3. Many of us black South Africans see the reluctance by our white fellow citizens to learn our cultures (or at least to learn how to say “hello” in Sepedi, for example) as an emphatic rejection of our way of life. I know the argument against learning black languages. “They are not business languages, etc.”
Since when has the language of your fellow citizens been about business imperatives? It should be about curiosity and a desire to relate to your fellow South Africans in the language that they understand. You can come up with all reasons why you’re not going to learn to say “hi” in Sepedi, but my reading of such reasons can be summed up simply as belittling my culture.
4. As a black young South African, I also do not understand why I am constantly urged by my white fellow citizens to bury the apartheid past and move on. What do I have to do with apartheid? And why am I urged to forget the past by people who are seemingly not ready to do the same?
If I cannot date a white girl for no reason other than that I am black (and that, because I am black, I am presumed to be an idiot), why am I being urged to pretend that my white fellow citizens accept me for who I am and not what my skin pigmentation looks like?
5. Trying to demonise corrective interventions such as Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment with sweeping generalisations about the quality of black leadership in top positions also implants in me a sense of quilt. You assume that I am in the position that I am in solely because I am black.
In essence, you assume that, had it not been for AA and BEE, I would be holding up plackards at the traffic intersections, begging. I see this as a grave insult and a blatant undermining of my intellect and my potential.
Everything that does not work in government is because “skilled workers” (an indirect reference to whites) are being excluded through AA and BEE! Can’t there be other reasons? How did the apartheid government fare in its delivery of public services with all these “skilled” workers at its disposal?
NB: See Wayne G's article on the following link: http://www.news24.com/Content/MyNews24/YourStory/1162/2ec7164e9ae64a498ff14b2f7f4d5ad6/16-09-2009-02-08/Our_own_Animal_farm
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 21 September 2009
The massive reaction to the News24 article by one Wayne G, "Our own Animal Farm" (16 September 2009), indicate two things to me: that South Africans not only want to debate the current state of race relations in the country, but also that they have a desire to know and understand each other.
Wayne speaks from the perspective of a frustrated white youth, and he raises a lot of questions and concerns that should not be ignored.
Amongst other things, Wayne blames the media for perpetuating racist stereotypes against whites, arguing that newspapers aggravate race relations “through their constant focus on the loud mouths of our country [such as Julius Malema, who exploit] our differences to sell papers.”
As a black youth myself, there are a number of factors that I wish the likes of Wayne took into consideration when analysing the state of racial integration (or lack thereof) in post-apartheid South Africa; and here’s what I wish we all start realising:
1. Trying to understand black people whilst constantly bashing the ANC is not a good start. After all, the ANC is credited within the black community for having liberated black people from the shackles of apartheid.
2. Needless to say, not all black South Africans support the ANC. In fact, the success of the official opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, is in part due to the massive support that the party received from a substantial pool of black voters across the country.
3. Many of us black South Africans see the reluctance by our white fellow citizens to learn our cultures (or at least to learn how to say “hello” in Sepedi, for example) as an emphatic rejection of our way of life. I know the argument against learning black languages. “They are not business languages, etc.”
Since when has the language of your fellow citizens been about business imperatives? It should be about curiosity and a desire to relate to your fellow South Africans in the language that they understand. You can come up with all reasons why you’re not going to learn to say “hi” in Sepedi, but my reading of such reasons can be summed up simply as belittling my culture.
4. As a black young South African, I also do not understand why I am constantly urged by my white fellow citizens to bury the apartheid past and move on. What do I have to do with apartheid? And why am I urged to forget the past by people who are seemingly not ready to do the same?
If I cannot date a white girl for no reason other than that I am black (and that, because I am black, I am presumed to be an idiot), why am I being urged to pretend that my white fellow citizens accept me for who I am and not what my skin pigmentation looks like?
5. Trying to demonise corrective interventions such as Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment with sweeping generalisations about the quality of black leadership in top positions also implants in me a sense of quilt. You assume that I am in the position that I am in solely because I am black.
In essence, you assume that, had it not been for AA and BEE, I would be holding up plackards at the traffic intersections, begging. I see this as a grave insult and a blatant undermining of my intellect and my potential.
Everything that does not work in government is because “skilled workers” (an indirect reference to whites) are being excluded through AA and BEE! Can’t there be other reasons? How did the apartheid government fare in its delivery of public services with all these “skilled” workers at its disposal?
NB: See Wayne G's article on the following link: http://www.news24.com/Content/MyNews24/YourStory/1162/2ec7164e9ae64a498ff14b2f7f4d5ad6/16-09-2009-02-08/Our_own_Animal_farm
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Disguised advertising is deceitful
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 16 September 2009
When corporate power dictates how we narrate our daily life, deceit is sure to follow
Advertising is perhaps one of the most exciting industries; and South Africa is renowned worldwide as being amongst the leading creative hubs in as far as advertising is concerned. But there are certain aspects of advertising that border on dishonesty.
One evening, I watched the Venda television series, Muvhango, screened on SABC 2, and the type of advertising that is contained in the soapie, masquerading as parts of the soapie storyline, can mislead unsuspecting television audiences.
Somewhere along the episode, for example, the cast gets together in a room to discuss banking, and not only do they make reference to Capitec bank in favourable terms, large posters of the bank are also placed strategically at the background, and the soapie’s concealed endorsement of the bank is beyond question.
Sometime back, another popular SABC television series, Generations, used to have their cast get regular hair-dos, courtesy of Soft ‘n Free, also concealed as part of the soapie storyline.
There should be a clear distinction between honest and transparent advertising activity and a sincere storyline aimed at dramatising the realities of daily life, free from the pressures of corporate power. We don’t have ad breaks for nothing.
Any form of advertising activity that is contained in soapie storylines, for example, negates our creative spirit and is meant to deceit unsuspecting audiences. Real advertisers do not disguise their products as part and parcel of other people’s popular initiatives.
When corporate power dictates how we narrate our daily life, deceit is sure to follow
Advertising is perhaps one of the most exciting industries; and South Africa is renowned worldwide as being amongst the leading creative hubs in as far as advertising is concerned. But there are certain aspects of advertising that border on dishonesty.
One evening, I watched the Venda television series, Muvhango, screened on SABC 2, and the type of advertising that is contained in the soapie, masquerading as parts of the soapie storyline, can mislead unsuspecting television audiences.
Somewhere along the episode, for example, the cast gets together in a room to discuss banking, and not only do they make reference to Capitec bank in favourable terms, large posters of the bank are also placed strategically at the background, and the soapie’s concealed endorsement of the bank is beyond question.
Sometime back, another popular SABC television series, Generations, used to have their cast get regular hair-dos, courtesy of Soft ‘n Free, also concealed as part of the soapie storyline.
There should be a clear distinction between honest and transparent advertising activity and a sincere storyline aimed at dramatising the realities of daily life, free from the pressures of corporate power. We don’t have ad breaks for nothing.
Any form of advertising activity that is contained in soapie storylines, for example, negates our creative spirit and is meant to deceit unsuspecting audiences. Real advertisers do not disguise their products as part and parcel of other people’s popular initiatives.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Let's ask new questions about 2010
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 08 September 2009
On Friday, 04 September, I attended the launch of the “Football Fridays” campaign at the South African Football Association (SAFA) House, south of Johannesburg – and it finally dawned on me that this world cup thing is actually coming our way.
The aim of the “Football Fridays” campaign is to encourage South Africans to wear football jerseys on Fridays and to learn the national anthem, fly the South African flag with pride and celebrate our country’s hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
Just being around the Soccer City area inspires confidence, particularly when you see the tremendous work done on the stadium and the broader precinct. The question is no longer whether or not we’ll be ready to host the event, but what kind of hosts we’ll be.
At the event, the CEO of the Local Organising Committee, Danny Jordan, spoke about the world cup as one of the several defining moments in the making of South Africa; others being the release from prison of Nelson Mandela in 1990, the first democratic general elections in 1994 and the rugby world cup in 1995.
The passion amongst the men and women working on South Africa’s preparations for the world cup, from the top executives to the men and women picking up pieces of litter around the stadiums, makes you proud to be a South African.
I know jealous people around the world, including those who originate from this country, continue to spread false rumours about our country; but those of us who live here know this country better. And some of these rumour-mongers cannot even point South Africa on the world map. I feel sorry for them.
We’re going to make history in 2010.
And, already, we are told that the Local Organising Committee has received applications from over 70 000 people from across the world who want to work as volunteers during the world cup. This is most certainly a resounding vote of confidence in South Africa.
We’re going to do this thing so well that the South African expatriate in London – or Moscow, or New York, or Montreal – wants to get on to the next available flight to Johannesburg, if only to be closer to the rhythm because, by then, all tickets would have sold out.
I know the national soccer team is not doing well on its preparations for the world cup, having recently suffered a 2-0 defeat over the weekend at the hands of Germany. But next year when we talk about the team, we’ll be talking about the broader South African citizenry and not just the 11 men on the soccer pitch.
Now that questions about our state of readiness have effectively become irrelevant, we must start debating a new question: how will the world look at us after the final game of the 2010 FIFA World Cup? Will they still look at us in the same way that they look at us now? What kind of picture will they have of South Africa?
NB: An edited version of this article was published on the City Press website under the headline, "Sekunjalo, SA's more than ready". See the article on this link: http://www.citypress.co.za/Content/MyCityPress/YourStory/2164/ef11554058704855b7478fa49c607b28/06-09-2009-12-15/Sekunjalo,_SA%E2%80%99s_more_than_ready
On Friday, 04 September, I attended the launch of the “Football Fridays” campaign at the South African Football Association (SAFA) House, south of Johannesburg – and it finally dawned on me that this world cup thing is actually coming our way.
The aim of the “Football Fridays” campaign is to encourage South Africans to wear football jerseys on Fridays and to learn the national anthem, fly the South African flag with pride and celebrate our country’s hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
Just being around the Soccer City area inspires confidence, particularly when you see the tremendous work done on the stadium and the broader precinct. The question is no longer whether or not we’ll be ready to host the event, but what kind of hosts we’ll be.
At the event, the CEO of the Local Organising Committee, Danny Jordan, spoke about the world cup as one of the several defining moments in the making of South Africa; others being the release from prison of Nelson Mandela in 1990, the first democratic general elections in 1994 and the rugby world cup in 1995.
The passion amongst the men and women working on South Africa’s preparations for the world cup, from the top executives to the men and women picking up pieces of litter around the stadiums, makes you proud to be a South African.
I know jealous people around the world, including those who originate from this country, continue to spread false rumours about our country; but those of us who live here know this country better. And some of these rumour-mongers cannot even point South Africa on the world map. I feel sorry for them.
We’re going to make history in 2010.
And, already, we are told that the Local Organising Committee has received applications from over 70 000 people from across the world who want to work as volunteers during the world cup. This is most certainly a resounding vote of confidence in South Africa.
We’re going to do this thing so well that the South African expatriate in London – or Moscow, or New York, or Montreal – wants to get on to the next available flight to Johannesburg, if only to be closer to the rhythm because, by then, all tickets would have sold out.
I know the national soccer team is not doing well on its preparations for the world cup, having recently suffered a 2-0 defeat over the weekend at the hands of Germany. But next year when we talk about the team, we’ll be talking about the broader South African citizenry and not just the 11 men on the soccer pitch.
Now that questions about our state of readiness have effectively become irrelevant, we must start debating a new question: how will the world look at us after the final game of the 2010 FIFA World Cup? Will they still look at us in the same way that they look at us now? What kind of picture will they have of South Africa?
NB: An edited version of this article was published on the City Press website under the headline, "Sekunjalo, SA's more than ready". See the article on this link: http://www.citypress.co.za/Content/MyCityPress/YourStory/2164/ef11554058704855b7478fa49c607b28/06-09-2009-12-15/Sekunjalo,_SA%E2%80%99s_more_than_ready
Friday, August 14, 2009
Bad news is good news -- and here's the proof
How strange that a winning story about tourism is one about a stinking motorcycle rider navigating his way through potholes and delays!
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 14 August 2009
If you were ever in doubt that, in the field of journalism, bad news is good news, you need not look any further than this year’s CNN MultiChoice African Journalist of the Year Awards.
All but three of the winners in the 16 individual categories entered stories about positive developments on the continent. The rest were stories of misery, poverty, war and underdevelopment.
In fact, even the winner in the tourism category was rewarded for putting together a piece about a bad-smelling Ugandan motorcycle rider who ferries people to the villages for a fee.
The judges remarked that, through the journalist’s “fantastic use of language”, he was able to bring audiences along to “experience the delay, the potholes, the know-it-all motorcycle drive with the bad breath as we head to our destination.”
How strange that a winning story about tourism – a non-essential but glamorous and profitable business – in an African country is one about a bad-smelling motorcycle rider navigating his way through potholes and delays.
Other winning entries were also depressing stories of despondency, focusing on, amongst others, the Mungiki criminal gang in Kenya, corruption in Mauritius, Aids and quackery in South Africa, etc.
The winning categories point to one thing: that, if you really want to walk away with that coveted award and price, you stand more chance if your entry is about war, corruption and disease – the topics traditionally associated with Africa.
The only three (out of 16) winning entries that contained positive stories were the arts and culture, economics and business as well as the sport awards.
Whichever way you look at them, the winning entries, when combined, do not paint a fair picture of life in Africa. The CNN MultiChoice African Journalist of the Year Awards therefore perpetuates – and in fact promotes – the myth of Africa as a dark continent.
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 14 August 2009
If you were ever in doubt that, in the field of journalism, bad news is good news, you need not look any further than this year’s CNN MultiChoice African Journalist of the Year Awards.
All but three of the winners in the 16 individual categories entered stories about positive developments on the continent. The rest were stories of misery, poverty, war and underdevelopment.
In fact, even the winner in the tourism category was rewarded for putting together a piece about a bad-smelling Ugandan motorcycle rider who ferries people to the villages for a fee.
The judges remarked that, through the journalist’s “fantastic use of language”, he was able to bring audiences along to “experience the delay, the potholes, the know-it-all motorcycle drive with the bad breath as we head to our destination.”
How strange that a winning story about tourism – a non-essential but glamorous and profitable business – in an African country is one about a bad-smelling motorcycle rider navigating his way through potholes and delays.
Other winning entries were also depressing stories of despondency, focusing on, amongst others, the Mungiki criminal gang in Kenya, corruption in Mauritius, Aids and quackery in South Africa, etc.
The winning categories point to one thing: that, if you really want to walk away with that coveted award and price, you stand more chance if your entry is about war, corruption and disease – the topics traditionally associated with Africa.
The only three (out of 16) winning entries that contained positive stories were the arts and culture, economics and business as well as the sport awards.
Whichever way you look at them, the winning entries, when combined, do not paint a fair picture of life in Africa. The CNN MultiChoice African Journalist of the Year Awards therefore perpetuates – and in fact promotes – the myth of Africa as a dark continent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
