Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 15 December 2010
Karl Marx observed memorably that “history repeats itself; first as tragedy, second as a farce”. This is no truer than in some events in South Africa’s history.
Exactly 172 years ago tomorrow, Zulu King Dingaan and his troops killed Voortrekker leader Piet Retief in a confrontation that would later culminate in what became known as the Battle of Blood River.
Dingaan is reported to have invited Retief to a ceremony to celebrate the signing of their land sale agreement. The ceremony, as it turned out, was a set up, organised by Dingaan to capture Retief and his troops.
After they were captured, Retief and his troops are said to have been led to kwa-Matiwane, where they were killed, with Retief being the last to be executed after watching his men as they were slaughtered one by one.
The Afrikaners designated the day of the massacre as a public holiday known as the Day of the Vow. The day, which remains a public holiday in post-apartheid South Africa, was also known as Dingaan Day.
Of great historical irony is that 123 years after Retief's killing (in 1962) the African National Congress, led by radicals such as Nelson Mandela, formed its military wing, Umkhondo We Sizwe (the spear of the nation), popularly known as the MK.
ANC President Oliver Tambo said of the MK that its formation marked the resumption of an "armed struggle under modern conditions for the restoration of our land to its rightful owners."
In a 1969 broadcast to mark the eighth anniversary of the MK, Tambo said the anti-apartheid rebel army would wage a fierce "armed guerilla struggle throughout southern Africa" that would result in the apartheid government suffering "ignominious defeat".
Up until 1990 when it suspended its operations in the face of negotiations for a peaceful settlement, the MK never faced apartheid forces in the type of struggle envisaged by Tambo. Instead, it launched targeted campaigns at apartheid operatives and strategic sites.
As a result of the integration in 1994 of the MK into the South African National Defence Force, today many former MK operatives work hand-in-hand with their former enemies.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Still no answer to South Africa's "National Question"
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.”
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.”
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.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Bakwena, it seems, put down roots long before Tshwane
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 01 November 2010
The FF+ even borrowed from Marxist theory to substantiate their opposition to the Pretoria name-change
Any explorer seeking to trace the founders of modern-day Pretoria, the capital city of South Africa, would eventually arrive at one place, Church Square, and meet one particular group of migrants, the Voortrekkers.
And any search for Chief Tshwane, after whom the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality is named, will lead any explorer either astray (as I was initially) or out of the city.
My initial expedition to trace the footsteps of the enigmatic chief was based on a widely-held presupposition, that Chief Tshwane was the founder of the modern-day city of Pretoria.
Following a futile three-day search for the chief in mid-September, I found myself immersed in Afrikaner history. I abandoned my search for Tshwane, whom even the municipal tourism authorities do not say much about.
Tshwane, the son of early Nguni migrants from the Natal, has now had his name immortalised in history, given to the municipality governing the historic capital city of South Africa.
Initial attempts to rename the entire city, including the central business district, after Tshwane have stalled, owing to vigorous opposition mainly from Afrikaners.
The predominantly Afrikaner political party, the Freedom Front Plus (FF+), has been so unrelenting in its opposition to the renaming of Pretoria to Tshwane it once even commissioned two Afrikaner academics to prepare a solid case against the name change.
The academics, Prof Pieter Labuschagne of the Department of Political Science at Unisa and Mr. Dirk Hermann, director of the Research Institute of the trade union Solidarity, concluded that the chief was never based on the site of modern-day Pretoria.
“The area south of the Magalies Mountains was up to 1825 Tswana area and not inhabited by the Ndebele,” wrote Labuschagne and Hermann. The two credited Tswana tribes as the rightful indigenous inhabitants of the area.
“The Bakwena tribe moved into the area and existed peacefully up to approximately 1825 when they were assimilated by force into a bigger unit as a result of the migration of the Matebeles under [the] leadership of Mzilikazi.”
Relying heavily on historical accounts of early 17th century English explorers, the two academics concluded in their report that “the location of the main kraal of Mzilikazi is indicated to be in the area of Pretoria North, even though smaller temporary rural settlements appeared to be more widespread.”
Hermann and Labuschagne credit Gerhardus Bronkhorst and his brother Lukas Bronkhorst as the first whites that settled in the Apies River area. The two brothers are said to have laid the farm Elandspoort.
Martinus Wessel Pretorius, the son of Voortrekker leader Andries Pretorius, bought the farm Elandspoort in 1835 from the Bronkhorst brothers. It was on this very farm, in 1855, that Pretorius founded the city of Pretoria.
Interestingly, by this time, Chief Tshwane’s royal family was most probably long disbanded – not by Voortrekker invaders, though, but as a result of infighting amongst his six sons.
According to a book published in 1965 (to which I was referred by a reader of the Sunday Independent after my initial article), Tshwane’s farther, Musi, was amongst the first group of Ngunis that trekked from Natal around year 1651.
The book by T.V. Bulpin, Lost Trails of the Transvaal (available at the municipal library), contains a brief narration of the story of Chief Tshwane. And the story corroborates with the contents of the report that Hermann and Labuschagne wrote for the FF+.
These early Zulu migrants – who later became known as Ndebeles – were not the first inhabitants of the areas around Pretoria. Various Tswana tribes were here long before them. And Musi’s base was in the Pretoria North region, in what is now the small town of Wonderboompoort, which is also known as Mayville.
It is not clear when Tshwane died; but, after his death, according to Bulpin, his six sons fought amongst themselves for chieftainship. “The whole tribe, accordingly, was split up into six groups: each independent, but all acknowledging a common origin.”
One group, under Manala, is said to have remained at the original tribal home. A second section, under Ndzundza, reportedly detached to the Olifants River. Another son, Dhlomo, is said to have gone back to Zululand.
Another one of the sons, Mthombeni, is reported to have “wandered up northwards and eventually settled in the bush along the southern slopes of Strydpoort Mountains.” The author does not say what happened to the rest of the two brothers.
It is important to note that the destruction of the Tshwane royal family happened before the arrival in the Transvaal of the second grouping of Ngunis, this time led by the warrior king, Mzilikazi.
A noteworthy conqueror, Mzilikazi led this second grouping of Ngunis from the mouth of the Olifants River. Towards the end of 1823, according to Bulpin, Mzilikazi operated a “robber band” from what is now the town of Bethal.
Mzilikazi’s alleged loot was not limited to livestock, for he is accused of having “won” even the wives of conquered clans and enrolled their sons as warriors.
It is important also to note that, even at this time – when Tshwane’s royal family had disintegrated – MW Pretorius had not even bought the farm, Elandspoort, upon which he later founded the city of Pretoria.
In their determination to keep the name Pretoria, the FF+ have gone to courts, organised protests and, at one point, even borrowed from Carl Marx’s theory of alienation.
The socialist theory revolved around workers losing their sense of identification with their own work. As explained in German, the word “alienation”, as applied in Marxist theory, means separation of things that naturally belong to each other.
The FF+ has argued that the dangers of alienation are also “extremely relevant” in name change processes. “In a majority democracy, it means that the majority in practice possess all the power,” the party lamented.
Earlier this year, in February, the storm around the name-change nearly erupted again after the Department of Arts and Culture listed Pretoria in a Government Gazette as one of the names to be changed permanently.
A predictable outcry immediately ensued, and the registration of the name was retracted within days of the gazette’s publication.
Still unresolved, the Pretoria name-change saga may soon come up again, and some unavoidable questions will have to be answered: could Tshwane himself have identified his name with the city as founded by Afrikaners? If names are being changed as tribute to ancient African leaders, won’t the Tswana tribe, Bakwena, claim more right to Pretoria?
An edited version of this article was published in the Sunday Independent on 31 October 2010, page 16.
The FF+ even borrowed from Marxist theory to substantiate their opposition to the Pretoria name-change
Any explorer seeking to trace the founders of modern-day Pretoria, the capital city of South Africa, would eventually arrive at one place, Church Square, and meet one particular group of migrants, the Voortrekkers.
And any search for Chief Tshwane, after whom the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality is named, will lead any explorer either astray (as I was initially) or out of the city.
My initial expedition to trace the footsteps of the enigmatic chief was based on a widely-held presupposition, that Chief Tshwane was the founder of the modern-day city of Pretoria.
Following a futile three-day search for the chief in mid-September, I found myself immersed in Afrikaner history. I abandoned my search for Tshwane, whom even the municipal tourism authorities do not say much about.
Tshwane, the son of early Nguni migrants from the Natal, has now had his name immortalised in history, given to the municipality governing the historic capital city of South Africa.
Initial attempts to rename the entire city, including the central business district, after Tshwane have stalled, owing to vigorous opposition mainly from Afrikaners.
The predominantly Afrikaner political party, the Freedom Front Plus (FF+), has been so unrelenting in its opposition to the renaming of Pretoria to Tshwane it once even commissioned two Afrikaner academics to prepare a solid case against the name change.
The academics, Prof Pieter Labuschagne of the Department of Political Science at Unisa and Mr. Dirk Hermann, director of the Research Institute of the trade union Solidarity, concluded that the chief was never based on the site of modern-day Pretoria.
“The area south of the Magalies Mountains was up to 1825 Tswana area and not inhabited by the Ndebele,” wrote Labuschagne and Hermann. The two credited Tswana tribes as the rightful indigenous inhabitants of the area.
“The Bakwena tribe moved into the area and existed peacefully up to approximately 1825 when they were assimilated by force into a bigger unit as a result of the migration of the Matebeles under [the] leadership of Mzilikazi.”
Relying heavily on historical accounts of early 17th century English explorers, the two academics concluded in their report that “the location of the main kraal of Mzilikazi is indicated to be in the area of Pretoria North, even though smaller temporary rural settlements appeared to be more widespread.”
Hermann and Labuschagne credit Gerhardus Bronkhorst and his brother Lukas Bronkhorst as the first whites that settled in the Apies River area. The two brothers are said to have laid the farm Elandspoort.
Martinus Wessel Pretorius, the son of Voortrekker leader Andries Pretorius, bought the farm Elandspoort in 1835 from the Bronkhorst brothers. It was on this very farm, in 1855, that Pretorius founded the city of Pretoria.
Interestingly, by this time, Chief Tshwane’s royal family was most probably long disbanded – not by Voortrekker invaders, though, but as a result of infighting amongst his six sons.
According to a book published in 1965 (to which I was referred by a reader of the Sunday Independent after my initial article), Tshwane’s farther, Musi, was amongst the first group of Ngunis that trekked from Natal around year 1651.
The book by T.V. Bulpin, Lost Trails of the Transvaal (available at the municipal library), contains a brief narration of the story of Chief Tshwane. And the story corroborates with the contents of the report that Hermann and Labuschagne wrote for the FF+.
These early Zulu migrants – who later became known as Ndebeles – were not the first inhabitants of the areas around Pretoria. Various Tswana tribes were here long before them. And Musi’s base was in the Pretoria North region, in what is now the small town of Wonderboompoort, which is also known as Mayville.
It is not clear when Tshwane died; but, after his death, according to Bulpin, his six sons fought amongst themselves for chieftainship. “The whole tribe, accordingly, was split up into six groups: each independent, but all acknowledging a common origin.”
One group, under Manala, is said to have remained at the original tribal home. A second section, under Ndzundza, reportedly detached to the Olifants River. Another son, Dhlomo, is said to have gone back to Zululand.
Another one of the sons, Mthombeni, is reported to have “wandered up northwards and eventually settled in the bush along the southern slopes of Strydpoort Mountains.” The author does not say what happened to the rest of the two brothers.
It is important to note that the destruction of the Tshwane royal family happened before the arrival in the Transvaal of the second grouping of Ngunis, this time led by the warrior king, Mzilikazi.
A noteworthy conqueror, Mzilikazi led this second grouping of Ngunis from the mouth of the Olifants River. Towards the end of 1823, according to Bulpin, Mzilikazi operated a “robber band” from what is now the town of Bethal.
Mzilikazi’s alleged loot was not limited to livestock, for he is accused of having “won” even the wives of conquered clans and enrolled their sons as warriors.
It is important also to note that, even at this time – when Tshwane’s royal family had disintegrated – MW Pretorius had not even bought the farm, Elandspoort, upon which he later founded the city of Pretoria.
In their determination to keep the name Pretoria, the FF+ have gone to courts, organised protests and, at one point, even borrowed from Carl Marx’s theory of alienation.
The socialist theory revolved around workers losing their sense of identification with their own work. As explained in German, the word “alienation”, as applied in Marxist theory, means separation of things that naturally belong to each other.
The FF+ has argued that the dangers of alienation are also “extremely relevant” in name change processes. “In a majority democracy, it means that the majority in practice possess all the power,” the party lamented.
Earlier this year, in February, the storm around the name-change nearly erupted again after the Department of Arts and Culture listed Pretoria in a Government Gazette as one of the names to be changed permanently.
A predictable outcry immediately ensued, and the registration of the name was retracted within days of the gazette’s publication.
Still unresolved, the Pretoria name-change saga may soon come up again, and some unavoidable questions will have to be answered: could Tshwane himself have identified his name with the city as founded by Afrikaners? If names are being changed as tribute to ancient African leaders, won’t the Tswana tribe, Bakwena, claim more right to Pretoria?
An edited version of this article was published in the Sunday Independent on 31 October 2010, page 16.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
New York City, a 'concrete jungle' indeed
Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 27 October 2010
In their song, Empire State of Mind, American musicians Jay Z and Alicia Keys portray a picture of New York City that radiates optimism.
The singers refer to the city as a “concrete jungle where dreams are made of;” where, once you’re in, “there is nothing you can’t do.”
But there is also a warning: “For foreigners”, the lyrics go, “it ain’t fitted they forgot how to act; eight million stories out there and their naked; cities is a pity half of y’all won’t make it.”
The contrast, even in artistic form, is stark – a concrete jungle where even the big lights are enough to inspire one is the same place where “half of y’all (foreigners) won’t make it.”
In reality, even New York City’s own children – born and bred there – can be foreigners right at home. And it doesn’t take a tourist too long to meet some of these native “foreigners”.
My meeting with the underdogs of New York City, the ones you seldom see in movies set in this “empire state”, was coincidental.
We were sitting comfortably in a train, headed for a high profile reception at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City on the sidelines of the 2004 National Republican Convention. The guest of honour: George W.H. Bush.
The passengers in the train were of mixed classes. The rich and the poor ride together. Businessmen in suits and pinstriped shirts and ties as well as ordinary folk in hip-hop wear, ears covered in headphones.
Then, just before the doors slam close, three teenage African-American boys jump in.
Unlike the rest of the passengers in the train, the trio isn’t going anywhere. They are beggars, and no sooner had the train started moving that they make their intentions clear.
“I ain’t got no parents; I ain’t got no home; I ain’t got no food,” pleads one of them, stretching his little hands for some coins.
Even before he finished his rhythmic plea, my fellow passengers were reaching for their pockets and handbags.
By this time, the speed of the train has gained momentum, down the famous New York City subway system. And the boy beggars gain a momentum of their own, moving from one carriage to the next, begging.
To Be Continued
In their song, Empire State of Mind, American musicians Jay Z and Alicia Keys portray a picture of New York City that radiates optimism.
The singers refer to the city as a “concrete jungle where dreams are made of;” where, once you’re in, “there is nothing you can’t do.”
But there is also a warning: “For foreigners”, the lyrics go, “it ain’t fitted they forgot how to act; eight million stories out there and their naked; cities is a pity half of y’all won’t make it.”
The contrast, even in artistic form, is stark – a concrete jungle where even the big lights are enough to inspire one is the same place where “half of y’all (foreigners) won’t make it.”
In reality, even New York City’s own children – born and bred there – can be foreigners right at home. And it doesn’t take a tourist too long to meet some of these native “foreigners”.
My meeting with the underdogs of New York City, the ones you seldom see in movies set in this “empire state”, was coincidental.
We were sitting comfortably in a train, headed for a high profile reception at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City on the sidelines of the 2004 National Republican Convention. The guest of honour: George W.H. Bush.
The passengers in the train were of mixed classes. The rich and the poor ride together. Businessmen in suits and pinstriped shirts and ties as well as ordinary folk in hip-hop wear, ears covered in headphones.
Then, just before the doors slam close, three teenage African-American boys jump in.
Unlike the rest of the passengers in the train, the trio isn’t going anywhere. They are beggars, and no sooner had the train started moving that they make their intentions clear.
“I ain’t got no parents; I ain’t got no home; I ain’t got no food,” pleads one of them, stretching his little hands for some coins.
Even before he finished his rhythmic plea, my fellow passengers were reaching for their pockets and handbags.
By this time, the speed of the train has gained momentum, down the famous New York City subway system. And the boy beggars gain a momentum of their own, moving from one carriage to the next, begging.
To Be Continued
Monday, October 25, 2010
Open Letter to SABC Operations Manager
Dear Frank Awuah, Manager for Operations at the SABC
Re: It is time to renew your television license
Thanks for your letter, dated 07 October 2010.
In the letter, you remind me that I must pay my yearly television license of R250, 00 by 30 November 2010, failing which I may “incur (unspecified) penalties.”
As a responsible citizen, I have no desire to face any of those “penalties” – so I will pay the amount as expected.
However, I should take this opportunity to remind you, as a representative of the SABC, that you should also take responsibility for the service you are supposed to render.
Just in case you need to be reminded, a couple of weeks ago the SABC was supposed to televise a game between the national football team, Bafana Bafana, and Sierra Leone. Not surprisingly, you failed to televise the game.
I am not sure what you do with the money that I pay into your accounts every year for my television license, and you don’t even bother to explain this. The only time I hear from you is when you remind me to pay up – which I always do.
I hope part of my money does not go to purchasing the many old American television shows that get repeated on your channels. Just the other day, in mid-September, Oprah Winfrey wished me a happy New Year (three months before the end of the year).
I also read in the newspapers that the chairman of the parliamentary committee on communications, Ishamail Vadi, criticised you, the SABC, for breach of relevant procurement processes.
The committee also reportedly said the financial position of the corporation “remains precarious” and that the board has not been able to hammer out a turnaround strategy.
So, does that mean I must just keep paying my annual R250,00 (for fear of those unspecified “penalties”) without knowing where it goes? Exactly what do you do with my money?
I hope you’ll respond to my questions.
Regards,
Madibeng Kgwete
TV license payer
Re: It is time to renew your television license
Thanks for your letter, dated 07 October 2010.
In the letter, you remind me that I must pay my yearly television license of R250, 00 by 30 November 2010, failing which I may “incur (unspecified) penalties.”
As a responsible citizen, I have no desire to face any of those “penalties” – so I will pay the amount as expected.
However, I should take this opportunity to remind you, as a representative of the SABC, that you should also take responsibility for the service you are supposed to render.
Just in case you need to be reminded, a couple of weeks ago the SABC was supposed to televise a game between the national football team, Bafana Bafana, and Sierra Leone. Not surprisingly, you failed to televise the game.
I am not sure what you do with the money that I pay into your accounts every year for my television license, and you don’t even bother to explain this. The only time I hear from you is when you remind me to pay up – which I always do.
I hope part of my money does not go to purchasing the many old American television shows that get repeated on your channels. Just the other day, in mid-September, Oprah Winfrey wished me a happy New Year (three months before the end of the year).
I also read in the newspapers that the chairman of the parliamentary committee on communications, Ishamail Vadi, criticised you, the SABC, for breach of relevant procurement processes.
The committee also reportedly said the financial position of the corporation “remains precarious” and that the board has not been able to hammer out a turnaround strategy.
So, does that mean I must just keep paying my annual R250,00 (for fear of those unspecified “penalties”) without knowing where it goes? Exactly what do you do with my money?
I hope you’ll respond to my questions.
Regards,
Madibeng Kgwete
TV license payer
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
