Posted by Madibeng Kgwete: 07 May 2007
Among some of the several bewildering arguments he makes in his column, “Zim will need a TRC when Mugabe goes” (The Star: Opinion & Abalysis), columnist Max Du Preez suggests that Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe should be tried for war crimes when he quits office.
Such a call is neither new nor originally Du Preez’s. It is a call made in Washington and London ostensibly to ensure justice for the victims of the Matabeleland massacre, which took place between 1983 and 1984 – just three years into Mugabe’s leadership as Prime Minister.
The killing of “as many as 25 000 civilians” in the southern province of Matabeleland by Mugabe’s North Korean-trained troops during the massacre warrants prosecution for Mugabe “and his henchmen”, according to Du Preez.
The arguments the columnist make would be strong had he not deliberately omitted the fact that, up to this far, calls for prosecution of former leaders for war crimes are only made when the leader is African or has presided over a poor country.
Currently, the United States and Britain , aided by Australia and other partners, are engaged in an illegal war in Iraq , maiming civilians and physically dividing the country into ethnic territories. Yet the likes of Du Preez won’t call for the prosecution of the untouchable emperors responsible for this illegal carnage.
In Britain, which is the erstwhile colonial master of many African countries (including South Africa and Zimbabwe), the best Prime Minister Tony Blair could do about his country’s involvement in the evil slave trade was to express “deep sorrow” – and no one called for vengeance.
Here in South Africa , we witnessed, no later than last year, the apartheid Minister of Law and Order, Adrian Vlok, apologising for ordering the killing of innocent black people during apartheid. If he really wants to see justice being done, why didn’t Du Preez call for Vlok’s prosecution?
Vlok chose Director-General in the Presidency, who is also one of his victims, Rev. Frank Chikane, to perform a religious feet-washing gesture, quoting John 13: 1 – 7 in the New Testament: “I have sinned against the Lord and against you. Please forgive me!”
Vlok was forgiven, not only by Chikane, but by the other black victims of the apartheid regime he so passionately served. And the best our neo-liberals could do was to call upon Vlok to reveal other atrocities committed under his command – a call he couldn’t heed up to this day. And still, there were no calls for vengeance.
Again here in South Africa , apartheid kingpin P.W. Botha died last year without having been punished for crimes committed by his apartheid government. Still, Du Preez and other neo-liberals wouldn't call for Botha’s prosecution.
In Sudan , the state-sponsored Janjawid militia is reported to have been responsible for the killing of many people in the war-torn Darfur region, yet no one is calling for the prosecution of President Omar Al-Bashir.
The hypocrisy of those calling for selective justice in Zimbabwe is so baffling that it would be proper to call for an explanation from Du Preez, as one of its advocates, to explain why he deliberately omitted mention of the fact that other suspected war criminals have died walking freely – and some still walk freely.
The fact that Du Preez calls upon the people of Zimbabwe to establish a truth and reconciliation commission similar to South Africa ’s whilst advocating vengeance against Mugabe makes the arguments he makes in his column all the cheaper.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Visionary leadership needed in Zimbabwe
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 18 April 2007
As the situation in our immediate northern neighbour, Zimbabwe, further deteriorates due to economic and political turbulences, we curious observes down here in South Africa and elsewhere in the world continue to point fingers the wrong way.
In analysing the situation in Zimbabwe , we continue to propagate several wishes and hope that, by amplifying them repeatedly, they will become the rules and regulations by which Zimbabwe should be governed.
One of those wishes is that the end of Mugabe’s rule heralds a new era of freedom, opportunity and progress in Zimbabwe in particular and southern Africa in general. We refuse to learn from history, and, as they say, we may be doomed to repeat it.
Many repressive regimes here in Africa and elsewhere in the world have come and gone, but their countries still face serious leadership problems to this day. Such countries include the Democratic Republic of Congo (where Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba has recently fled the country after a warrant was issued for his arrest), Sudan (divided by two because of a long civil war) and many more others.
With regard to the DRC, successive military coups there have failed to rid the central African country of tyranny, corruption and lawlessness.
Since the assassination of Patrice Lumumba in 1960, it took the DRC more than fifty years to experience a democratic transition. Such a transition is now hanging in the balance following disagreements between Bemba and his president, Joseph Kabila.
Why, even in the face of overwhelming historical evidence, are we still refusing to accept that the removal of one repressive leader does not guarantee freedom and democracy? Why do we seem to think that pushing Mugabe out of office is the magic formula to turn Zimbabwe around? The problems in Zimbabwe are bigger than Mugabe.
The problem in Zimbabwe is lack of visionary leadership in all the political, economic and civil sectors. Generally, the people of Zimbabwe lack a sense of solidarity, firmness and the daring attitude needed in standing up to concentrated political power.
What we have seen so far is a nation led by a weak opposition movement. The top echelon of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), including leader Morgan Tsvangarai his many spokespersons, have failed to provide leadership to the desperate masses of Zimbabweans.
The MDC has partially contributed in creating a monster out of Mugabe, firstly by refusing to acknowledge him as their legitimate president. Mugabe’s previous two elections may have been controversial, but the MDC has done more harm than good by rejecting Mugabe. They created a climate of paranoia and conspiracy theories.
Now that Zimbabwe is in ruins, much attention is on South Africa , the economic and political powerhouse of the African continent and one of Zimbabwe ’s neighbours. But there is little South Africa can do if both warring parties in Zimbabwe continue to question one another’s legitimacy.
Many have argued that South Africa should abandon its widely criticised “quite diplomacy” and take a tougher stance against Mugabe. Such calls ignore the fact that a tougher action against Mugabe will not automatically be followed by a better Zimbabwe .
What is needed in Zimbabwe is the emergence of several strong leaders with impeccable credentials to succeed Mugabe. Up to this far, such leaders have not been forthcoming, if ever they are there. As for Tsvangarai, his megaphone diplomacy, coupled with lack of visionary leadership, make him one of the worst possible successors of Mugabe.
At this dark hour in the history of their country, the people of Zimbabwe should remember the words of United States civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who once said: ““The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood”.
If the MDC is truly committed to a better Zimbabwe , it should reassure Mugabe that it would not heed the repeated line that, may he quit office, Mugabe may be prosecuted for war crimes. Punishment should be the very last of MDC’s goals.
A good example of what happens when you revive old wounds is the West African country of Sierra Leone , where the prosecution of those who are suspected of having committed war crimes, together with former Liberian President Charles Taylor, has divided the country.
The MDC must stop listening too much to the West and start acting independently and innovatively. They must become the "disciplined noncomformits" that they seem not to have been all along.
An edited copy of this article appeared in The Star (http://www.thestar.co.za/) on Monday 16 April 2007 under the headline, “ousting tyrants is no guarantee for oppressed people”.
As the situation in our immediate northern neighbour, Zimbabwe, further deteriorates due to economic and political turbulences, we curious observes down here in South Africa and elsewhere in the world continue to point fingers the wrong way.
In analysing the situation in Zimbabwe , we continue to propagate several wishes and hope that, by amplifying them repeatedly, they will become the rules and regulations by which Zimbabwe should be governed.
One of those wishes is that the end of Mugabe’s rule heralds a new era of freedom, opportunity and progress in Zimbabwe in particular and southern Africa in general. We refuse to learn from history, and, as they say, we may be doomed to repeat it.
Many repressive regimes here in Africa and elsewhere in the world have come and gone, but their countries still face serious leadership problems to this day. Such countries include the Democratic Republic of Congo (where Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba has recently fled the country after a warrant was issued for his arrest), Sudan (divided by two because of a long civil war) and many more others.
With regard to the DRC, successive military coups there have failed to rid the central African country of tyranny, corruption and lawlessness.
Since the assassination of Patrice Lumumba in 1960, it took the DRC more than fifty years to experience a democratic transition. Such a transition is now hanging in the balance following disagreements between Bemba and his president, Joseph Kabila.
Why, even in the face of overwhelming historical evidence, are we still refusing to accept that the removal of one repressive leader does not guarantee freedom and democracy? Why do we seem to think that pushing Mugabe out of office is the magic formula to turn Zimbabwe around? The problems in Zimbabwe are bigger than Mugabe.
The problem in Zimbabwe is lack of visionary leadership in all the political, economic and civil sectors. Generally, the people of Zimbabwe lack a sense of solidarity, firmness and the daring attitude needed in standing up to concentrated political power.
What we have seen so far is a nation led by a weak opposition movement. The top echelon of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), including leader Morgan Tsvangarai his many spokespersons, have failed to provide leadership to the desperate masses of Zimbabweans.
The MDC has partially contributed in creating a monster out of Mugabe, firstly by refusing to acknowledge him as their legitimate president. Mugabe’s previous two elections may have been controversial, but the MDC has done more harm than good by rejecting Mugabe. They created a climate of paranoia and conspiracy theories.
Now that Zimbabwe is in ruins, much attention is on South Africa , the economic and political powerhouse of the African continent and one of Zimbabwe ’s neighbours. But there is little South Africa can do if both warring parties in Zimbabwe continue to question one another’s legitimacy.
Many have argued that South Africa should abandon its widely criticised “quite diplomacy” and take a tougher stance against Mugabe. Such calls ignore the fact that a tougher action against Mugabe will not automatically be followed by a better Zimbabwe .
What is needed in Zimbabwe is the emergence of several strong leaders with impeccable credentials to succeed Mugabe. Up to this far, such leaders have not been forthcoming, if ever they are there. As for Tsvangarai, his megaphone diplomacy, coupled with lack of visionary leadership, make him one of the worst possible successors of Mugabe.
At this dark hour in the history of their country, the people of Zimbabwe should remember the words of United States civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who once said: ““The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood”.
If the MDC is truly committed to a better Zimbabwe , it should reassure Mugabe that it would not heed the repeated line that, may he quit office, Mugabe may be prosecuted for war crimes. Punishment should be the very last of MDC’s goals.
A good example of what happens when you revive old wounds is the West African country of Sierra Leone , where the prosecution of those who are suspected of having committed war crimes, together with former Liberian President Charles Taylor, has divided the country.
The MDC must stop listening too much to the West and start acting independently and innovatively. They must become the "disciplined noncomformits" that they seem not to have been all along.
An edited copy of this article appeared in The Star (http://www.thestar.co.za/) on Monday 16 April 2007 under the headline, “ousting tyrants is no guarantee for oppressed people”.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Both Mugabe and Bush undemocratic
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 30 March 2007
The concerns that South African commentator Hamilton Wende expresses in his opinion article in The Star newspaper, “It could have been so different” (Opinion & Analysis, 29 March 2007), are concerns that thousands of voiceless people across the world have long been expressing about George W. Bush, the tyrant at the helm down in Washington DC .
Wende aptly describes the Bush administration’s detention-without-trial and abuse of suspected terrorists at Guatanamo Bay as “an unforgivable indictment on the ideals which have made America the oldest constitutional democracy in the world”.
It is a grave pity that, after years of protest against America’s unjustifiable use of violence against antagonists, particularly those in the Arab world, Bush and the yes-men and women surrounding him seem to have renewed their arrogance towards the world as a whole.
It is ironic that Bush and his right-hand men in Britain and Australia, Tony Blair and John Howard respectively, are the same individuals trotting the globe to preach about democracy and human rights in Africa and elsewhere in the world. Their hypocrisy will not take us anywhere.
If Bush truly believes in democracy and respects other people’s right to life (both of which I doubt he does), he could not have invaded Iraq for reasons known only to himself, his dubious spooks and the head-nodding diplomats surrounding him.
The suffering inflicted on the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the detainees at Quatanamo Bay and other US detention camps around the world makes Bush’s regime comparable to the very regimes he so vociferously despises, such as Zimbabwe's.
Bush is in the same league with his Zimbabwean counterpart. Just like President Robert Mugabe, Bush came to power after a controversial election victory. Bush, like Mugabe, disregards critics, condones the use violence in campaigns to advance his interests and does not seem to value human life.
Bush is as undemocratic and authoritarian as his counterpart in Harare . The tone in Bush’s public speeches is similar to that of Mugabe’s. Both use words as unpresidential as “go to hell”. For example, Bush is on record as having said: “I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes”. Mugabe, on the other hand, recently told his critics to “go hang”.
With the main proponents of democracy – Bush, Blair, Howard, etc – advocating human rights, liberty and peace whilst practicing the opposite, our continent Africa and the rest of the third world need to formulate an independent positions on matters affecting countries such as Zimbabwe.
It is easy to blame African leaders for non-action in Zimbabwe . Africa’s critics – both in and out of the continent – have strongly argued that South Africa abandons its so-called quite diplomacy and that sanctions should be imposed on Mugabe and his supporters.
That may help in pushing Mugabe out of office, but the questions really are: “Are the punitive international protocols only reserved for poor African autocrats and tyrants?” “Is the US , its president and his cronies all above the law?”
The concerns that South African commentator Hamilton Wende expresses in his opinion article in The Star newspaper, “It could have been so different” (Opinion & Analysis, 29 March 2007), are concerns that thousands of voiceless people across the world have long been expressing about George W. Bush, the tyrant at the helm down in Washington DC .
Wende aptly describes the Bush administration’s detention-without-trial and abuse of suspected terrorists at Guatanamo Bay as “an unforgivable indictment on the ideals which have made America the oldest constitutional democracy in the world”.
It is a grave pity that, after years of protest against America’s unjustifiable use of violence against antagonists, particularly those in the Arab world, Bush and the yes-men and women surrounding him seem to have renewed their arrogance towards the world as a whole.
It is ironic that Bush and his right-hand men in Britain and Australia, Tony Blair and John Howard respectively, are the same individuals trotting the globe to preach about democracy and human rights in Africa and elsewhere in the world. Their hypocrisy will not take us anywhere.
If Bush truly believes in democracy and respects other people’s right to life (both of which I doubt he does), he could not have invaded Iraq for reasons known only to himself, his dubious spooks and the head-nodding diplomats surrounding him.
The suffering inflicted on the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the detainees at Quatanamo Bay and other US detention camps around the world makes Bush’s regime comparable to the very regimes he so vociferously despises, such as Zimbabwe's.
Bush is in the same league with his Zimbabwean counterpart. Just like President Robert Mugabe, Bush came to power after a controversial election victory. Bush, like Mugabe, disregards critics, condones the use violence in campaigns to advance his interests and does not seem to value human life.
Bush is as undemocratic and authoritarian as his counterpart in Harare . The tone in Bush’s public speeches is similar to that of Mugabe’s. Both use words as unpresidential as “go to hell”. For example, Bush is on record as having said: “I will never relent in defending America - whatever it takes”. Mugabe, on the other hand, recently told his critics to “go hang”.
With the main proponents of democracy – Bush, Blair, Howard, etc – advocating human rights, liberty and peace whilst practicing the opposite, our continent Africa and the rest of the third world need to formulate an independent positions on matters affecting countries such as Zimbabwe.
It is easy to blame African leaders for non-action in Zimbabwe . Africa’s critics – both in and out of the continent – have strongly argued that South Africa abandons its so-called quite diplomacy and that sanctions should be imposed on Mugabe and his supporters.
That may help in pushing Mugabe out of office, but the questions really are: “Are the punitive international protocols only reserved for poor African autocrats and tyrants?” “Is the US , its president and his cronies all above the law?”
Friday, March 9, 2007
Colonial and apartheid names must go -- now!
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 09 March 2007
In his letter in The Star newspaper, www.thestar.co.za, “Name changes are going to haunt us” (09 March 2007), Mqizilili Gamedze makes a number of regrettable conclusions about name changes in South Africa, guided by his apparent lack of both historical knowledge and understanding.
Gamedze says, for example, that: “Post-apartheid opportunities for the redress of racial imbalances have worked in [the ANC’s] favour, providing the impetus to perpetuate the lie: VIP toilets, BEE (whatever that means), African renaissance and, of course, ostensibly to rewrite this country’s history”.
Sounding like a perfect example of an apartheid apologist, Gamedze further writes: “Changing place names of historical significance to other population groups, even if that history is written in African blood, is against the spirit of reconciliation, which brought the ANC to power in the first place”.
Gamedze’s greatest deficiency is his unwillingness to accept that the twin systems of colonialism and apartheid have done so much damage to the pride of black people that the many colonial names still hanging around our country serve to remind us that blacks are still a conquered lot.
To pump some pride back into the black people – who now have achieved their age-old dream of self-governance – the question of renaming key landscapes such as airports, cities, roads, etc, is so critically important that non-action would, in my view, amount to negligence.
Gamedze may think we’ve already had more than enough name changes already, but I think we have done too little too late. We blacks still have a lot more colonial and apartheid names to get rid of: names such as East London, Port Elizabeth , Bloemfontein , King William’s Town, Port St Johns, etc.
We black people would be doing a great disservice to the pride of our great continent Africa if, in this era of black political rule, we become too complacent, too comfortable and too oblivious to worry about reclaiming our past and safeguarding our integrity.
The previous administrations have succeeded in instilling within black people a false sense Europeanism, of compulsorily having European names and promoting other Eurocentric beliefs and practices. Sometimes we black South Africans are accused by our own counterparts in other African countries of being easy convertibles.
Because of this false sense of Europeanism instilled within us by our previous masters, we still shun our own languages and even families. As the current political office bearers, we have a choice between maintaining a Eurocentric country, with all its European names (some of which as quite derogatory), and reclaiming our pride by getting rid of aparheid and colonial names.
An edited copy of this article appeared in The Star newspaper on 13 March 2007 under the headline, "Old place names remind us daily that blacks are a conquered lot", page 15.
Yes, but -- says a reader
Posted on 01 April 2007
I fully agree with the writer when he says "Colonial and apartheid names must go now!". However, one has to give consideration to the latest Supreme Court of Appeal decision that consultation is key in deciding whether these names should go or not.
It is my view that our hatred for the ills of the past undoubtedly overshadows our intentions to ensure that we do not repeat the excesses of the apartheid military junta that ruled in an autocratic manner. The will of the majority has to be considered through a consultative and inclusive process, enlisting the views of the Afrikaners and other interest groups even though we are clear that a minotiry of these groups are still clinging to our divided and racial past with passion.
Consultation might be challenging and demanding given the fact that most indigenous people, who unfortunately constitute the majority, do not have the necessary resources to make inputs in these processes as they are concerned with survival than lobbying. Remember, the majority of South Africans have been excluded from economic activity as result of the draconian laws of the previous racist regime that ensured that the historically oppressed, especially Africans, the most oppressed, do not even own property, let alone the means of production - the essence for survival. One must not forget that blacks in general and Africans in particular continue to bear the brunt of economic exclusion in South Africa despite the sterling efforts by the democratic government to integrate them to the mainstream economy.
These efforts of government, although noble, cannot transform over 350 years of colonialism and oppression over 12 years since 1994 - the year for the South African miracle where the poor compromised to ensure that there is peace in the Southern tip of Africa and this peace is for social cohesion and economic development for the benefit of the historically oppressed, especially the African majority that we said has no resources to engage in campaigns of this nature such as renaming towns, cities and institutions that remind us of our grim past.
Consultation is key and it requires us - myself, the writer and the rest - to be careful of becoming the copycats of Afrikanerdom and the imperialist agenda of failing to take into consideration the views of the minorities and the majorities that must be outlined to the public before we take the decisive actions of removing these sickening names from our new dispensation and replacing them with names understood and accepted by a major section of people that benefited from the Apartheid past. Sifiso Ndlazi
In his letter in The Star newspaper, www.thestar.co.za, “Name changes are going to haunt us” (09 March 2007), Mqizilili Gamedze makes a number of regrettable conclusions about name changes in South Africa, guided by his apparent lack of both historical knowledge and understanding.
Gamedze says, for example, that: “Post-apartheid opportunities for the redress of racial imbalances have worked in [the ANC’s] favour, providing the impetus to perpetuate the lie: VIP toilets, BEE (whatever that means), African renaissance and, of course, ostensibly to rewrite this country’s history”.
Sounding like a perfect example of an apartheid apologist, Gamedze further writes: “Changing place names of historical significance to other population groups, even if that history is written in African blood, is against the spirit of reconciliation, which brought the ANC to power in the first place”.
Gamedze’s greatest deficiency is his unwillingness to accept that the twin systems of colonialism and apartheid have done so much damage to the pride of black people that the many colonial names still hanging around our country serve to remind us that blacks are still a conquered lot.
To pump some pride back into the black people – who now have achieved their age-old dream of self-governance – the question of renaming key landscapes such as airports, cities, roads, etc, is so critically important that non-action would, in my view, amount to negligence.
Gamedze may think we’ve already had more than enough name changes already, but I think we have done too little too late. We blacks still have a lot more colonial and apartheid names to get rid of: names such as East London, Port Elizabeth , Bloemfontein , King William’s Town, Port St Johns, etc.
We black people would be doing a great disservice to the pride of our great continent Africa if, in this era of black political rule, we become too complacent, too comfortable and too oblivious to worry about reclaiming our past and safeguarding our integrity.
The previous administrations have succeeded in instilling within black people a false sense Europeanism, of compulsorily having European names and promoting other Eurocentric beliefs and practices. Sometimes we black South Africans are accused by our own counterparts in other African countries of being easy convertibles.
Because of this false sense of Europeanism instilled within us by our previous masters, we still shun our own languages and even families. As the current political office bearers, we have a choice between maintaining a Eurocentric country, with all its European names (some of which as quite derogatory), and reclaiming our pride by getting rid of aparheid and colonial names.
An edited copy of this article appeared in The Star newspaper on 13 March 2007 under the headline, "Old place names remind us daily that blacks are a conquered lot", page 15.
Yes, but -- says a reader
Posted on 01 April 2007
I fully agree with the writer when he says "Colonial and apartheid names must go now!". However, one has to give consideration to the latest Supreme Court of Appeal decision that consultation is key in deciding whether these names should go or not.
It is my view that our hatred for the ills of the past undoubtedly overshadows our intentions to ensure that we do not repeat the excesses of the apartheid military junta that ruled in an autocratic manner. The will of the majority has to be considered through a consultative and inclusive process, enlisting the views of the Afrikaners and other interest groups even though we are clear that a minotiry of these groups are still clinging to our divided and racial past with passion.
Consultation might be challenging and demanding given the fact that most indigenous people, who unfortunately constitute the majority, do not have the necessary resources to make inputs in these processes as they are concerned with survival than lobbying. Remember, the majority of South Africans have been excluded from economic activity as result of the draconian laws of the previous racist regime that ensured that the historically oppressed, especially Africans, the most oppressed, do not even own property, let alone the means of production - the essence for survival. One must not forget that blacks in general and Africans in particular continue to bear the brunt of economic exclusion in South Africa despite the sterling efforts by the democratic government to integrate them to the mainstream economy.
These efforts of government, although noble, cannot transform over 350 years of colonialism and oppression over 12 years since 1994 - the year for the South African miracle where the poor compromised to ensure that there is peace in the Southern tip of Africa and this peace is for social cohesion and economic development for the benefit of the historically oppressed, especially the African majority that we said has no resources to engage in campaigns of this nature such as renaming towns, cities and institutions that remind us of our grim past.
Consultation is key and it requires us - myself, the writer and the rest - to be careful of becoming the copycats of Afrikanerdom and the imperialist agenda of failing to take into consideration the views of the minorities and the majorities that must be outlined to the public before we take the decisive actions of removing these sickening names from our new dispensation and replacing them with names understood and accepted by a major section of people that benefited from the Apartheid past. Sifiso Ndlazi
Monday, February 26, 2007
Wrong to portray blacks as criminals
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 26 February 2007
In his opinion article, “The dangers of racial profiling” (The Star, 26 February 2007), Rich Mkhondo asks the critical question: “Is racial profiling or stereotyping a necessary tool to protect our communities from crime?”
The answer really depends on who you are. Those with a right-wing mentality would most likely agree with racial profiling or stereotyping or both, whilst democrats would oppose the idea.
Black people here in South Africa and around the world are still seen as the main perpetrators of crime, wars, corruption, fraud, etc. This perception is enforced by black people’s lack a popular medium through which they can claim innocence.
After 13 years of freedom and democracy in South Africa, our media is still a vehicle to glorify the white man, portray him as the target of some inhuman black people. The black man is still the subject of horrific headlines.
Media propaganda still reigns in favour of white people. More black faces are seemingly at the forefront of many major media houses, but the white man still has the final say. The boardroom wields much more power than the newsroom.
As a result, the media is still a vehicle to promote white interests. We have panic buttons pressed when a white man is attacked, but many black lives are brutally eliminated without any mention.
Portraying crime as a black-versus-white issue smacks of irresponsibility. Everyone could fall victim to crime anytime, and the perpetrator could belong to any race.
As Mkhondo correctly stated, “Racial stereotyping is a lazy way of labelling people”.
We black people may be holding political power, but we still endure a lot of public humiliation. In the malls and other public places, we still get nasty looks, with members of other races seeing us as some brutal parasites, unable to think constructively and mentally inferior.
Is this the freedom our elders have so tirelessly fought for?
In his opinion article, “The dangers of racial profiling” (The Star, 26 February 2007), Rich Mkhondo asks the critical question: “Is racial profiling or stereotyping a necessary tool to protect our communities from crime?”
The answer really depends on who you are. Those with a right-wing mentality would most likely agree with racial profiling or stereotyping or both, whilst democrats would oppose the idea.
Black people here in South Africa and around the world are still seen as the main perpetrators of crime, wars, corruption, fraud, etc. This perception is enforced by black people’s lack a popular medium through which they can claim innocence.
After 13 years of freedom and democracy in South Africa, our media is still a vehicle to glorify the white man, portray him as the target of some inhuman black people. The black man is still the subject of horrific headlines.
Media propaganda still reigns in favour of white people. More black faces are seemingly at the forefront of many major media houses, but the white man still has the final say. The boardroom wields much more power than the newsroom.
As a result, the media is still a vehicle to promote white interests. We have panic buttons pressed when a white man is attacked, but many black lives are brutally eliminated without any mention.
Portraying crime as a black-versus-white issue smacks of irresponsibility. Everyone could fall victim to crime anytime, and the perpetrator could belong to any race.
As Mkhondo correctly stated, “Racial stereotyping is a lazy way of labelling people”.
We black people may be holding political power, but we still endure a lot of public humiliation. In the malls and other public places, we still get nasty looks, with members of other races seeing us as some brutal parasites, unable to think constructively and mentally inferior.
Is this the freedom our elders have so tirelessly fought for?
Monday, February 12, 2007
America's new method of occupation
By Madibeng Kgwete: posted on 12 February 2007
The United States government has reportedly approved the establishment of a new single military command for Africa, to be known as Africa Command.
Announcing the new command, US President George W. Bush is said to have remarked that: “Africa Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa.”
But, given the embarrassing defeats that the US is suffering in Iraq, it is not convincing that the real reason behind the creation of Africa Command is to ensure “development, health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa”, as Bush is reported to have said.
Deploying a more coordinated military force in Africa -- the continent which some commentators have described as the poorest on earth -- will help the US to easily interfere in the internal affairs of our continent, deploy puppet states and remote control the continent with ease.
Those African leaders who are not popular in Washington should better watch out, for Africa Command is here for them. Once the Command is fully deployed on the African continent, the sovereignty of our nations will most likely be hanging in the balance.
To think, like Bush, that the US military can bring “democracy and economic growth in Africa” through the deployment of more troops on our continent is highly pathetic. New methods of occupation are being devised, and, quite clearly, Africa is still the continent for the taking.
Africa Command is here to intimidate our leaders, undermine our continental structures such as the African Union Security Council and interfere in the internal affairs of our continent.
The United States government has reportedly approved the establishment of a new single military command for Africa, to be known as Africa Command.
Announcing the new command, US President George W. Bush is said to have remarked that: “Africa Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa.”
But, given the embarrassing defeats that the US is suffering in Iraq, it is not convincing that the real reason behind the creation of Africa Command is to ensure “development, health, education, democracy and economic growth in Africa”, as Bush is reported to have said.
Deploying a more coordinated military force in Africa -- the continent which some commentators have described as the poorest on earth -- will help the US to easily interfere in the internal affairs of our continent, deploy puppet states and remote control the continent with ease.
Those African leaders who are not popular in Washington should better watch out, for Africa Command is here for them. Once the Command is fully deployed on the African continent, the sovereignty of our nations will most likely be hanging in the balance.
To think, like Bush, that the US military can bring “democracy and economic growth in Africa” through the deployment of more troops on our continent is highly pathetic. New methods of occupation are being devised, and, quite clearly, Africa is still the continent for the taking.
Africa Command is here to intimidate our leaders, undermine our continental structures such as the African Union Security Council and interfere in the internal affairs of our continent.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
South Africa is not a 'banana republic'
By Madibeng Kgwete: 28 January 2007
Sunday Times editor Mondli Makhanya is rightly not shy of speaking his mind on matters of state incompetence and other issues of public interest, but the comparisons he makes between South Africa and so-called “banana republics” in “Slip-ups put our country in the company of banana republics” (January 21) taste sour.
As if he had foreseen widespread government failure as early as February 2006 when President Thabo Mbeki delivered his State of the Nation address, Makhanya writes in his I-told-you-so tone: “Those who were not moved by that speech were those with hearts as dead as ancient rock.”
Makhanya then goes on to suggest, obviously falsely, that Mbeki, after his 2006 State of the Nation address, “promptly disappeared behind his Union Buildings barricades and let us get on with being hopeful by ourselves”.
You’d think that Makhanya would follow his criticism of Mbeki with the latest incidents of state incompetence or denialism, but he relies heavily on recycled news items retrieved from previous editions of the Sunday Times.
He blasts Mbeki on the controversial Film and Publications Bill, whose enactment the state has already reconsidered following intense opposition by media freedom organisations, and the police’s reported attempt to centralise communication (also reconsidered after media opposition).
Whether or not the government had a hidden agenda behind each of the above plans and others is hard to fathom, but that the government has listened to critics should make the distinction that
A copy of this article was published in the Sunday Times newspaper on 28 January 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
