Destiny Man ad: Don’t be that guy

The Dalailemma

It is beyond shocking that South Africa might deny the Dalai Lama a visa again. He was denied entry into the country the first time around just before the 2010 FIFA World Cup, Pretoria effectively admitted that it didn’t want to raise the ire of China by allowing him into the country. The press release should have read, “We’re chicken, and we’re really scared of China, so we’ll do what China wants because we’re China’s bitch now.”

We like to call China a friend, but only one-friend benefits while the other is screwed of their dignity. We’re pimping our moral grounding for Chinese money. Maybe I should have just called this column, “The whoring of a nation.”

It would be pathetic if we didn’t allow the Dalai Lama to visit South Africa in order to attend his friend’s birthday, Desmond Tutu. This Nobel Peace Prize winner is being treated no differently from your common criminal.

Our government has selective moral positions when it comes to matters of moral standing. One thing on Tibet, and another on Palestine.

The SA government doesn’t stand for what it believes, it stands for what China believes. We have no backbone. We have lost all moral standing we once had during the Mandela era. It would appear as if our foreign positions are dictated to us by foreign entities. We have committed a great treason against ourselves.

When Nelson Mandela was president, we had swagger. We knew what we stood for and what we stood against. We were direct and were respected for it. No one told us what to do, no matter the financial clout of the government we were dealing with at the time.  Back in 1998, when he was president, we were even more desperate for FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) than we are now. Yet we never for a moment cowered to whims of powerful foreign nations.

What this tells us is that a country’s moral standing goes hand in hand with it’s leader’s moral standing.

Our moral authority was clear for all to see. Whether we were at fault or not. The Americans were completely uneasy about South Africa’s relationship with the “Axis of the Outcasts”, Cuba’s Castro, Iran and our relation with Gadaffi and made it very clear to us that this was not ideal and were unhappy. The message was effectively, “You can’t be friends with people we don’t like.” It was a very high school girl kind of affair. Which is what China is doing. Being a high school girl and we’re like the friend that’s desperate to be liked but is being bullied.

When then president Bill Clinton came to South Africa for a state visit in March 1998, Nelson Mandela said to the press, with Bill Clinton standing two metres away from him, “Those who feel we should have no relations with Gaddafi, have no morals. Those who feel irritated by our friendship with President Gaddafi can go jump in the pool.”

He said it with such certainty and moral conviction that it was clear that we are a sovereign nation that deserved to be treated with respect, and not dictated to, even though our economic clout was a mere drop in the ocean compared to that of the United States. He would not allow us to be treated as anything other than equals. Not only that, we had to behave as equals. Now we’re like a dog waiting for approval from its master so that we can get some breadcrumbs on the floor.

Some speculate that we fear losing out on our standing as a member of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, a group of developing nations that have formed a strategic trading partnership to give them leverage against the West).  Well, India has given the Dalai Lama refuge and they are part of BRICS.

China needs us as much as we need them. China won’t drop South Africa because of the Dalai Lama. They need our minerals and we need their money. They need our resources for their rapidly expanding population, China is not going to react out of emotion and pull out. Our moral cowardice is disgusting.

Yes, Blacks Do Read, But Do They Write?

Originally appeared on The Cape Times in May

So much went on that I have decided to discuss various subjects in this single column. I had the privilege of attending the Franschoek Literary Festival and participated in panels on all three days. Almost everyone who was there had written a book. The last time I felt that insecure was when I was showering with a group of Nigerians. For a writer I sure talked a lot. Instead of covering one issue, I have decided to cover several issues in this column instead. The interesting thing about the festival is how the issues were black and white even though that was not the point.

The first thing I’d like to discuss is the issue of blacks not reading.  Yes, blacks do read, but do they write? That is the question that we really need to be asking. The reason I wanted to address that issue is because of the lack of black writers. They are there, but there aren’t many who have had books published. This was also apparent to anyone attending the festival, there weren’t many black faces. There are several conclusions one can draw from this. 1) Blacks are not interested in the festival. 2) Blacks don’t feel included, (although I felt at home) therefore stand on the sidelines. 3) Blacks aren’t really as interested in literature as white folk.

One of the most important things that was said at the festival was by Anna Trapido who said that it’s time writing about Mandela went to black hands because there are nuances that blacks can get about Mandela and his Xhosa context that white writers may not be able to get. She mentioned that Mandela’s favourite taste was amasi (sour milk) and she said that is something that non-Xhosa writer might miss the significance of. (Although I must add that if she was able to pick that up that goes to demonstrate that she is an insightful writer.) Great writing, it could be argued, transcends race, so it should not matter who writes about Mandela. No matter, I am also of the school that writing about Mandela should go into black hands now (In fact, it’s a pity that we are saying “now”, it should have been so from the get go). However, it has to be a mature black writer, someone who is at least 45 years of age who will have greater insight than a younger black writer. I said as much to Anna Trapido who suggested that I should do it

The other interesting panel discussion I was involved in was with Tom Eaton moderated by Fiona Snyckers. One of the questions that was asked is whether there are things that blacks can say that white’s can’t in satire. I think that everybody can say anything. But there are consequences to what one says. In South Africa if a black person critises the government, they are criticizing the government but when a white person says the same thing, there are times when that person can be accused of racism. Tom Eaton raised a good point and said some times you may have white South Africans who criticize the black government out of racist intent even though what they are criticizing is correct.

The point I made is that in America, you have a case where there is a white majority where a black minority was oppressed. However one finds that when one says offending statements about black people there is a public outcry, case in point radio host Don Imus who was fired after calling black woman “nappy headed hoes”. In the states you have a case whereby the rights of the minorities are protected. In South Africa, especially because of our past, one sometimes finds that things can be said about minorities without much consequence. However we did see Khuli Roberts quitting her column as a result of an insensitive column she’d written. The truth is black people can get away with more than white people can. This has to do with the historical nature of what went through. It can also be easily argued that white folk have been getting away with saying a lot things about black people for centuries without consequence.

The final point I want to make is that we haven’t really defined what the South African voice is in writing. What does it mean to be South African? This question is asked a lot. There is no single South African voice. We shouldn’t try to find one as our coat of arms reads, “United in diversity”. We are not homogenous. We are different. We must accept this and not try to be the same, but we should remain united.

The Sayings of Julius Malema

‘Kill the farmer’ oppresses black people

Originally appeared on News24, 2010-03-30 07:55

The reasons the ANC would want to defend its right to sing, “Kill the boer, kill the farmer” are completely understandable and legitimate. The song is part of a history of a necessary struggle that was eventually won after hundreds of years of oppression.

This oppression was in fact the direct reason the song came into being in the first place. Had there been no apartheid, no brutality against the peoples of colour, the song would never have had a reason to exist. It would have been unnecessary – as unnecessary as Citi Golf would be to Khanyi Mbau.

The system created an unbearable anger; it composed and conducted the song. It was a product of what we abhorred. It could be argued that apartheid should in fact be credited with the creation of the song, and while we’re at it, all the songs of the struggle. With the new dispensation, we became the masters of our fate; in 1994, when Nelson Mandela became South Africa’s first democratically elected president.

Having said that, the song didn’t defeat apartheid. No song brought apartheid to its knees. Yes, songs were a necessary and an extremely important part of the struggle, but it was the peaceful resolution that was entered into through CODESA and other talks before the first truly democratic elections in South Africa in 1994. As a result, it can be argued that there is no need to fight tooth and nail for this song. So what if some judge considers that song Hate Speech? The banning of that song is not going to diminish the ANC in any way. There is no need to fight it.

Since we claim to be a free people, are we truly a free if we continue to sing songs that talk to us as if we are still oppressed? Does that make any sense at all to sing as if we are? I am not talking about the fact that the economy or the land is still in white hands. I am referring to something that no man has a hold over but each man. The one area each man is his own master – the mind. To continue singing this song is to further oppress our people and is completely irresponsible, for it serves to tell them that they are not yet free. You are still in Egypt, not in the Promised Land. This is what the song says to me.

As you might have noticed, dear reader, I am not discussing the merits of the judgment that led to the banning of the song. In case you were not aware, the song was called hate speech, thus banned.

In his inaugural speech in 1994, Nelson Mandela said, “The time for the healing of the wounds has come. The moment to bridge the chasms that divide us has come. The time to build is upon us.” This song does not heal, nor does it bridge any chasms that divide us. If anything it widens them. The song simply does not build.

Madiba went on to say, “We have triumphed in the effort to implant hope in the breasts of the millions of our people. And then he told us to act as a united people, for national reconciliation, for nation building, for the birth of a new world.” Kill the boer, kill the farmer song divided us; it did not show the values that the founding fathers hoped we would those of nation building.

As Napoleon Bonaparte so eloquently put it, “A leader is a dealer in hope.” By singing the song, Julius Malema did not act as a leader. The song points us to a system, which has been, arguably, abolished. A leader points the people towards hope, not despair, possibility. Not destruction, a bright future. Not a bleak past.

As Steve Biko wrote in his paper, The Definition of Black Consciousness, “We cannot be conscious of ourselves and yet remain in bondage.” This song only serves to tell black people that they remain in bondage. It tells them to be angry at something they have already overcome, because we all know that the song did not literally mean kill the farmer it simply meant death to apartheid. Why sing it now?

The song should not be banned, but it should not be sung either. Why should a free people be in bondage to the past?

This young white guy speaks flawless Xhosa. Radebe!

Nelson Mandela Saying Mbeki is the best president South Africa has ever had

“I have said it so often, but want to repeat it here at what must certainly be the last time that parliament will bend its own rules to allow me to address it: no President or Prime Minister in the history of this country can claim to have done more for the people and the country than has been achieved by President Thabo Mbeki.

He is a modest man and I know he would prefer that I do not sing his personal praises, but his achievement as President and national leader is the embodiment of what our nation is capable of. Public acknowledgement of his achievements is to affirm ourselves as a nation, to assert the confidence with which we face our national future
and conduct ourselves on the international stage.

Thank you, Mister President, for leading us with such vision and dedication to your task.

— The full quote by Nelson Mandela during a joint sitting of parliament to mark 10 years of democracy in South Africa, Monday 10 May 2004, Cape Town.

Excuse me while I blame apartheid*

By Khaya Dlanga

Many white people see no just cause in blacks blaming apartheid for anything. It ended almost 14 years already; get over it already, they say. Often it is said with indignation, if not irritation, as though to say, how dare they!

Those who insist we stop talking about it tell us it’s in the past, so we should forget about it. Perhaps it would be easy to forget if we didn’t bear the scars of the past. For some it’s not mere scars; some walk around with deep sores that are still healing — slowly. Every now and then, the sore is disturbed and the healing process is reversed.

It is easy for the “perpetrator” (I use that word liberally here) to say: “Forget about it,” because he does not want to be reminded of his sins. At the same time it is also too easy for the victim to keep playing the victim card instead of getting on with it. There is a middle ground somewhere between these conflicting feelings.

When we blame the legacy of apartheid, most white people take it as a personal attack on them for having benefited from the system. Or they accuse blacks of refusing to take responsibility for whatever is going wrong in the country. This is not the case. It is an attack on the system. We are not asking you to feel guilty. If anyone needs to get over anything, it is white people who walk around carrying guilt. This guilt might paralyse them, or even make them unwitting racists. Or, even worse, cause them to overcompensate, thus wiping away any sincerity in their efforts to balance the past.

To be honest, had I been white during the height of apartheid I don’t know if I would have had the moral fortitude to stand up against the National Party government. Perhaps I would have condemned it in the comfort and privacy of my mind.

The legacy of apartheid is very real. Let us not pretend that people don’t have a legitimate reason for blaming it for their current condition, as some excuse for their lack of progress. It is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of black people were denied a good education; some were even denied an education. The government of the day did not bother to build schools for them.

Where there is education, opportunity soon follows, and without it blacks were caught in a vicious cycle of stagnation. They saw no real progress for themselves. Instead of passing on wealth from generation to generation, their descendents inherited poverty and a very visible reality that they were not allowed to prosper in the land of their birth.

To dismiss these realities as mere laziness on the part of the black person is a clear lack of understanding of the position the formerly oppressed find themselves in today. The black person is still playing catch up.

We in the black community are lacking decent education, even with the new government. The teachers who teach most black students did not get a fantastic education themselves. With these steep hills to climb, it is a miracle that so many children who went through those schools have managed to extricate themselves from the web of hopelessness.

Jobless blacks in the townships and in the rural areas do not expect the government to do anything for them. What they want are opportunities so that they can improve their lives — not handouts. Many of them don’t see these opportunities, so they create some for themselves even in the bleak conditions in which find themselves. Young men create car-wash businesses and young women hair saloons, to name just the most obvious examples.

On the other hand, blacks look at white misbehaviour through the prism of race without seeing the core of the problem. When we only look at it that way, we don’t try to solve the issue.

The black community must not confuse with racism the young white man’s anger. He cannot understand why he has to be at the back of the queue when he seeks employment. Let’s say that he is too young even to remember apartheid. Shall we now punish him for benefiting from a system that was not of his choosing? Is it his fault that he just happened to have been born into it? Whether he would have grown up to be a perpetrator of the evils of the previous system or not is immaterial. What matters is that the system ended before he could be a conscious and active participant in it. What do we do now?

Having said all I have, I would like to point out that I am not as naive as to believe that racism does not exist. Sadly it is does. We saw manifestations of it recently at the University of the Free State.

Whether we admit it or not, we are all victims of apartheid. But we cannot be victims forever. We may have been victims, but we don’t have to think and act like them. The only way we can raise above it is when we first seek to understand. However, this must not excuse bad black or white behaviour.

*first published March 28 on thoughtleader.co.za

Why do skinny girls have fat friends?

My ex features in this video too.

Is Zuma weak or just being used? *

By Khaya Dlanga

I don’t know about you, but I prefer my leaders smart. I don’t want their intellectual capacity to be open for debate.

Even if a leader is a jackass, I want to be able to say: “Sure, he’s a jackass, but he sure is smart,” like many people thought of good ol’ Mbeki. I don’t want my leader to be making George Bush-like misstatements when he speaks in public. It fills me with a great deal of comfort when I know that my leader is significantly smarter and wiser than I am. I’ll be the first to admit that that bar is not very high, so I’m not asking for much.

I know that some people will think that I’m questioning Zuma’s intelligence. I would have to be an idiot (not that I am not) to think that he is on the slow side. You don’t become the second-most-powerful man in the land by being stupid.

I just get the sense that his top supporters don’t respect him. Or they just think that they are smarter than he is. All they respect is what they can get because of him. I can’t shake the feeling that they will discard him like used toilet paper; once they are rid of him, they will go on the hunt for some other poor soul who is hungry and desperate enough for power, for whatever reason. Unfortunately many will claim much love for him, but I suspect they would rather nurse their expensive Johnnie Walkers while he burns, since he would have achieved his purpose. For them.

I had a conversation with a former chairperson of a certain region of a certain trade union a few months ago. I will name this individual Mr Someone as he told me in no uncertain terms not to reveal his name when I told him that I was going to write a blog regarding our conversation.

It was not until I saw headlines with the Congress of South African Trade Unions contradicting statements made by Zuma that I paid attention to the conversation I had those months ago with Mr Someone.

Mr Someone shared with me the reason the leaders of the trade unions were so passionate about Zuma. He made a call to a regional chairperson, Mr Somebody, of a large trade union while he was with me. After their conversation ended, Mr Someone revealed to me that the reason the likes of Mr Somebody supported Zuma so passionately was because he was someone the trade unions could control. They did not have that luxury with Mbeki and they punished him for it. He trusted his intellect far too much for their liking.

At times I wonder who calls the shots in the ANC. Is it Phosa or Gwede? I never wonder if it’s Zuma. Perhaps he is too busy preparing for the trial. Since the conference I have never felt that Zuma is leading the ANC. I don’t buy the collective argument. My suspicion is that the leadership of the ANC does not think that he would make a good president. If anyone is a lame-duck president, it’s Jacob Zuma.

We see the lack of power in small humiliations, so small that they go unnoticed. In the future they might become more blatant. Time will tell. He is made to retract a statement here and another one there. He is forced to say he was misquoted. Can you imagine that happening to Mbeki?

If all this is true, then it fair to say that Jacob Zuma does not lead; he is being led.

Zuma is becoming a sad and tragic figure. No one can deny that he is a likable and charming man. These two virtues do not a leader make.

He fought so hard for power that when he got it, he discovered he had it in name only. He is told how to wield it. We know that he would argue and say he is a consensus leader. The truth is that Mandela was such a leader, but we knew he had power; we never doubted it. The same can be said about Tambo. Mbeki was a different story, apparently. If this is Zuma’s way of rebelling against Mbeki’s style of leadership, then he is taking it too far. He just seems weak. Perhaps that is what Mr Somebody meant when he said that Zuma is someone that can be controlled.

This is what I expect from my leader:

I want to know what my leader stands for. I don’t want to hear him say one thing today and the opposite tomorrow.

I don’t want a leader who stands just for his own survival. I want a leader who will make sure that I, along with 46-million odd South Africans, don’t just survive but thrive.

I don’t want a leader who follows the public mood, but one who shapes it.

I want a leader who will tell me what I need to hear, not what I want to hear.

I don’t want a leader who thinks that he can get away with answering tough questions by laughing. He should be arrogant enough to say, “I refuse to answer this question,” or, “This interview is over, Mr Journalist Person. Your question crossed the line.”

Zuma, man up! Be the president we know you can be. Stop trying to appease every interest group out there and take your power back!

*first published March 12th, on www.thoughtleader.co.za

Barack Obama answers my question, (Yes, I, Khaya Dlanga’s question)

Humbling response to my video

Coming out

I quit smoking pot when I was 10

My Psycho Ex

South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki Fired/Resigns

Should Thabo Mbeki launch a new party? *

By Khaya Dlanga

I read an interesting yet short article by Karima Brown on Business Day online. The following paragraphs caught my eye:

“Could firebrand African National Congress Youth League president Julius Malema have an even bigger effect on South African politics than he dreams of?

“His demand that President Thabo Mbeki be stripped of his ANC membership could well be the Damascene moment that induces the birth of a powerful new opposition to the ANC. For months it has been whispered that Mbeki and his camp have been exploring the formation of a new party after his defeat by Jacob Zuma in Polokwane. Polls have been conducted, research commissioned, meetings held and stories spread.”

It would have been unwise and bordering on political and strategic retardation to strip Mbeki of his ANC membership. It would have been going very far — so far that it would have been beyond too far. ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe dismissed these calls as mere rumours while on the television programme Interface.

Had the rumours been true, it would have been the best thing to have happened to Mbeki because that would have given him carte blanche to form his own party. Many like-minded people would have flocked to him; many of them with money. His party wouldn’t have won a majority, but the ANC wouldn’t have gained a two-thirds majority either, nor would it even have received 50% of the vote.

They need him in the ANC: not for his sake, but for the sake of the party to make life easier for the organisation. An opposition led by the former president would give the ANC a rather impossible migraine.

Now he has to toe the party line, and show that he is a dedicated and loyal member of the ANC who will do anything asked of him. After Zuma is sworn in as president, what will happen to him? Will the ANC discard him because he has achieved for it what it wanted? Without Mbeki, the ANC’s majority will be greatly reduced.

The ANC needs him more than it is willing to admit. Is it possible that he does not need the party as much?

There was a part of me that hoped that the ANC would be foolish enough to strip him of his membership. Not because I was hoping that he would be humiliated — on the contrary, I thought that it would be a great idea for him to head up a powerful opposition to the current ANC, which I have started to see as quickly devolving into an anarchist organisation. Of course that was my immediate emotional reaction at the time of his dismissal. His address to the nation did much to calm this line of thinking. He said: “I remain a member of the ANC, and therefore respect its decision. It is for this reason that I have taken the decision to resign as president of the republic.”

He is far too loyal to the ANC to leave it.

There are some level-headed moderates within the leadership structures of the ANC: the likes of Kgalema Motlanthe, Pallo Jordan and others — unfortunately we never hear them. We only ever hear those who shout from the rooftops that they would kill for Zuma. Mind you, not in defence of their nation or an ideology, but for a mere man. I don’t think I’ve ever even heard someone say they’d kill for Mandela, and there is a man worth dying for.

I have mixed feelings about the whole series of unfortunate events that has led us to this point. This is a painful moment for our nation. People are emotional. They are hurting. Let the victors not gloat for they have led one of their own to the slaughter. And like a lamb, he willingly walked there.

The ANC insists that the firing of Mbeki is not revenge. I don’t think that the public buys that. This is all so transparent. The purpose of Mbeki’s removal is to pave a path for Jacob Zuma’s ascension to the pinnacle. Plain and simple. No sugar-coating necessary. When power speaks nonsense to us, we should reply with truth.

Mbeki is too much of a loyal ANC man even to consider starting a new political party. But should he remain loyal to a party that he thinks has lost its way?

On the one hand, one can argue that it is better for him to stay in the ANC and try to reform it from within. If he forms a new political party, he will be accused of sulking.

One thing we have learnt from the events since Polokwane is that the ANC is reformable. Just because people with a different ideology now overrun it does not mean that it will remain this way forever. Evolution will happen in time.

Now we have to wait and see. What will the new elites do with their newfound power? Will it make them drunk and cause them to do the very same things of which they have accused Mbeki? Are they going to try to block the possible prosecution of the ANC president, Jacob Zuma? Should we as the public (or, as those in power like to refer to us, the masses, as though we are some objectionable vile disease) turn a blind eye from that hypocrisy?

If the new elites decide to drop all charges, then we have to make the assumption that the new executive too is unjust. If this is the case, then the ANC deserves to be punished at the polls by reducing its majority. It goes without saying that the ANC will win the next election. By squashing the appeal, then, they will not give Zuma his day in court, as he had so frequently demanded in the past.

We can only sit back and admire the president’s supporters’ reactions. There have been no shouts of “There will be blood on the streets if Thabo Mbeki is removed from office.” No threats of mayhem or a revolution. No “100% Xhosa-boy” T-shirts. No effigies of Zuma burnt to ashes. No tyres burning on the roads. No shops looted. His response was dignified. Presidential. His supporters have respected the decision made by the ANC. He stepped down with humility and asked for unity. He addressed the nation. We listened. The nation was calm during a very uneasy period.

After Polokwane, the world’s top ratings agencies said: “South Africa’s prudent monetary policy framework would stay in place with room for some flexibility on spending. We do not see a sharp change in policies.”

If we have strong fundaments, then, to quote the guy that I’d like to leave me his estate when he dies, Warren Buffet: “You should invest in a business that even a fool can run, because someday a fool will.”

I think that is the important thing about South Africa. We should protect our institutions and the Constitution for this reason. They should be so strong that when and if a fool does take over at some point, we don’t fall apart. For now, I don’t think we will fall apart. There is too much at stake. The new leadership is not bent on destroying the country.

To quote the president as he announced his resignation to the nation: “Our strength as a people is not tested during the best of times. We should never be despondent because the weather is bad. Nor should we turn triumphalist because the sun is shining.”

The new comrade elites would serve themselves well to heed these words. Now that the sun is shining for them, what will they do?

Now is not the time for personal vendettas.

Mbeki was far from a perfect president, but he has been the best we have ever had. Can we do better than Mbeki? Yes, we can. That is what we always hope for, that each successive generation will give us better leaders. My only hope is that we get better leadership sooner rather than later.

South Africa is a better country than it has been for the past few years.

khayav@gmail.com

* Originally published on 22 September, www.thoughtleader.co.za/khayadlanga

Monday

A cartoon I drew a while back.

Should Zuma give way for a Motlanthe presidency after the 2009 elections?*

If Zuma were to get up and address the nation and tell us that he has no intentions of running for the presidency of the country, he would do much to repair his chequered reputation. Such an announcement would probably be one of the single greatest acts of self-sacrifice this nation has ever seen. It would be a great turn around. He would redeem himself in many people’s eyes.

But then again, who am I kidding? Nothing of the sort would ever happen; not in a million years. If Jacob Zuma were to be asked today if he would be willing to stand down in the name of party unity he would give us the predictable rehearsed classic response, “I serve at the pleasure of the ANC. If the ANC says that they want me to serve as president of the country, I will serve. If it says it wants me to sweep the floors I will. It is not for me to say I don’t want to be president or I want that position.” I would bet a billion rand that’s what he would say if asked. Ok, maybe not those precise words but you get my drift.

It is my understanding that no one puts a gun against anyone’s head and forces someone to a position they don’t want in the ANC. Sometimes our leaders treat us as though we are idiots. We may be dumb, but we certainly aren’t as dumb as they think.

In a clever attempt to have it both ways, Zuma could also announce to the nation that he is making that consideration when in fact he isn’t. The Youth League, Cosatu and others would then shout from the rooftops and he would “cave”. He would then say that there are too many calls for him to run — he simply cannot ignore those calls; he has to serve the people. I expect that he would also point to the example set by Nelson Mandela who, before the elections, is reported to have told the NEC that he did not want to be president of the country because he felt he was too old. He also argued that there were younger and more capable hands to lead the country. The only difference is that there were no divisions within the ANC at the time. The ANC urged him to stand because the world trusted him and he would also ease any white fears. Basically, it was best for the country for him to be president.

Referring to the Mandela example, is it the best thing for the country to have a Zuma presidency? In fact, let me pose a less noble question. Is it the best thing for the ANC? I doubt that it is best for the ANC for him to run and these are my very unscientific reasons:

1. If he runs, the ANC will most certainly have a reduced majority at the polls next year as a direct result of the manner in which Thabo Mbeki has been treated. It was not the most politically astute move to make a few months before the general elections.

2. The DA will most certainly win the Western Cape thanks to the divisions in the ANC and the coloured vote going to the DA once again.

3. I am convinced that the UDM will see an increase in enthusiasm for it, particularly in the Eastern Cape. Personally, I believe Bantubonke Holomisa has been making sense for a very long time but nobody has been listening.

4. Much of the young, black middle class feels like political orphans at the moment and will either abandon the ANC and will not vote, or they will look for a new home.

Did the ANC really consider all of these possibilities before the ousting of Thabo Mbeki? Did they really have the interests of the ANC at heart or did they just have the interests of one man? Or were the Zumarites so drunk with victory after Judge Nicholson’s judgment that they threw reason out the window?

The advantage of having Kgalema Motlanthe as president is that he would be his own man. He owes no one. The ANC would remain largely intact if he were to run for the presidency. Most of those who feel like they are political orphans now that Thabo Mbeki has been fired would come back home. The ANC wouldn’t suffer as much in the elections next year.

Unfortunately the ANC is led by a group of hot heads who would never consider Kgalema Motlanthe as the option for party and country. They want what they want and they will do whatever it takes to get it. Get rid of the Scorpions, get rid of unwanted premiers, get rid of Thabo Mbeki and maybe the next thing is to drop all charges against Jacob Zuma. And finally, President Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma.

If Zuma were to stand down it would probably be one of the greatest selfless acts we have ever witnessed as a nation. Not just because he would forego power, but he would forego a couple of extra pages in the history books as South Africa’s third democratically elected president.

If Zuma takes this course of action, he would also free himself from the political debts he owes. His creditors would tell him in no uncertain terms that a debtor cannot tell his creditors how he wants to pay them. He simply has to abide by the terms and conditions that have been set out before him, or there will be consequences. He might be forced to constantly make decisions he doesn’t want to make as president because he owes so many people. Zuma is between a rock and stainless steel.

To be fair, none of us know what it’s like to be Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma. We can only imagine the torments he goes through. Now he can see a light at the end of the tunnel. But once he emerges into the light, will he be his own master?

Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma both damaged the ANC. They should ride into the sunset and allow others to repair the mess they have created. I suspect both men believe the other is responsible for this mess. They should leave the stage for Kgalema Motlanthe.
The question is: is Zuma man enough to give up what no man would give up? Can he truly give up what he has been working towards for such a long time? Can he give it up when it is within reach? When he has it in the palm of his hand? If I were him I don’t know if I would be able to. And that is the truth. Perhaps we should understand why he wouldn’t give up. But I don’t think we should excuse him for not letting go.

*first published September 25 2008, www.thoughtleader.co.za/khayadlanga

Sarah Silverman tells Jewish kids to get their granparents to vote for Obama (amusing)

I’ve got an iPhone, the (bad) musical

Attraction

I’ve written this blog on my iPhone 3g

I decided to write a blog (as the title suggests) on my iPhone to see what it would be like. I must say it’s not as irritating as I thought it would be to use this keyboard. The cool thing is that it corrects your spelling as you go along in case you strike the wrong keys.

I don’t know how many wrong keys I’ve hit so (ok, that was irritating, as I was trying to write the “so” it kept writing “do”. But that was my fault because I kept hitting the wrong key) far.

But this is not bad if you want to write a short blog. It’s taken me 7 minutes to scribe this much. I’m sorry to tell you this but as I write, I’m on the toilet, pants on ankles. Not to worry kids, I always wash my hands.

What women should know

This is a cormmecial I worked on with a number of people who work at MetropolitanRepublic.

Khaya, the greatest man that ever lived

What Miss Teen South Carolina said about South Africa

Is the current ANC counter revolutionary?*

By Khaya Dlanga

There are some pretty uncomfortable questions we ought to ask of the African National Congress, for its own sake and ours as a nation. Regardless of what people think of the ANC, our fates are bound to it. It is for this reason that everyone must show interest in its dealings. We cannot follow sheepishly what the leadership tells us is gospel truth — especially when it is manufactured to suit those who seek to lead us. No one should hope for the implosion of the ANC, for its demise means we too shall perish. The perfect example is ZANUPF of Zimbabwe.

The desire to see a better African National Congress requires that we defend and criticise it when and if the need arises. It is a mistake to behave as though it is perfect — that its leaders can do no wrong. It is precisely because it is run by flesh and blood beings that it is imperfect, just like any organisation or company.

We have witnessed our leaders’ fallibilities time and time again, which explains why the people have become cynical of politics and have rightly lost faith in their leaders.

Whenever a shining light presents itself, all attempts to extinguish it are made. Like the voice of ANC deputy president Kgalema Motlanthe. When he said that the judiciary should remain independent, ANCYL spokesperson Floyd Shivambu was quoted saying that Motlanthe’s “Going around affirming the independence of the criminal justice system on the case of the ANC president is worrisome.” How is affirming the independence of the judiciary worrisome? Does that statement even make sense? If the statement by the YL’s spokesperson were a joke, it would be a really fun one. Sadly, we are not laughing.

A member of the National Working Committee was quoted by the City Press as saying “Motlanthe creates the impression that all of us are a mad mob and that he is the only saviour, the sole voice of reason, and that he is better than all of us.” This says a lot about some people in there. They seem to recognise (with great reluctance I might add) that they are indeed a mob, and know that there is indeed a lone voice of reason. Instead of applauding it, the mob besieges it and tries to drown it out, not with logic, but with loud voices.

If I am not mistaken, rule 3.7 on the Character of the ANC in its constitution says the following: “The principles of freedom of speech and free circulation of ideas and information will operate within the ANC.”

When a senior member, the deputy president of the ANC, is dragged through the mud for exercising his rights as observed by the constitution, can we truly say that the principles of freedom of speech and the free circulation of ideas operate within the ANC? If this is contrary to what the ANC is meant to represent then can we not say that the ANC is losing its way?

Was it not the ANC that set in motion our constitution? Was it not the ANC that voted and made sure that we have an independent judiciary at the dawn of our democracy? Some have even said that we risk anarchy if Jacob Zuma goes to trial. It is better we have anarchy defending the independence of the judiciary than have a bench full of lackeys.

If Motlanthe’s goal is indeed the presidency, as some have claimed, then this would be a very bad way of playing his cards. He knows who will put him at the helm – the very people he is criticising. Perhaps he has come to realise that the country and the party are too important for him to remain silent while he watches people squabble over a leader — not ideology. He knows that voicing his true thoughts could cost him the presidency or influence should ANC President Jacob Zuma go to jail. It is for this reason that I applaud him for speaking out even though it is politically inconvenient for him. Lincoln once said, “Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.”

We have lost our appetite of fighting real battles. We have become accustomed to frivolity. And so, as we search for a meaning as a nation, we find meaning in money, getting drunk and getting laid. Sometimes people do all three at the same time. These are the examples that have been set before us by our leaders.

As much as I respect our leaders (some with great reluctance I have to admit), I respect what the ANC should be more. Since it is not what it should be and since it is further away from what it should be than it was five or even ten years ago, then we can say that it is inching away from its revolutionary mandate.

Our leaders have not lived up to their responsibilities to this great organisation.

We have become accustomed to the daily tragic comedy that has become a way of life for our politics. And we watch bemused, as though watching a very bad episode of Generations.

The ANC of Chief Albert Luthuli, Oliver Tambo, Walter Sisulu and Nelson Mandela was never about battling one another for power. Maybe they had bigger things to worry about than fight so publicly and so dirty amongst themselves. Maybe they were too busy fighting apartheid. Maybe they were too busy fighting for their freedom. Maybe they had higher ideals than to squabble about power, position and prestige.

Not all the current leaders are men of questionable character, reputation or intention. But just because a man’s character and his intentions don’t seem to be questionable does not mean he must not be questioned. This is to protect us from him and him from power. Because power, as we see every day, corrupts.

We should not and must not treat the ANC as though it were a perfect organisation, led by men and woman who are all perfect, and with nothing but perfect objectives. Some may have good intentions – for themselves. It is at this point that we need to make sure that members and leaders don’t confuse the good intentions they have for themselves as good intentions for the party or the state.

I suppose even questioning the current ANC leaders as counter revolutionary could be viewed as counter revolutionary. It is a never-ending cycle. It might be no different from a parishioner of the Roman Catholic Church calling the Pope and his Cardinals heretics.

The ANC seems to be at ease with its current disorderly conduct; it is time we made it uncomfortable so that we, the people, can be at ease with the future of nation. Right now, we are not. Our leaders are supposed to give us confidence for the future. So far they are failing. Dismally.

*first published on thoughtleader.co.za 2nd September 2008

YouTube responds to the debate

Could a crazed McCain supporter attempt to assassinate Obama?

I’m not telling you what they were reacting to. It’s disgusting that’s all I’ll say.

The Internet Knows, The musical

Fear, hypocrisy and the abuse of Mandela in the ANC*

I read a rather hypocritical article penned by former Limpopo premier Ngoako Ramatlhodi in the Sunday Times where he decried the treatment of former president Nelson Mandela during an ANC national executive committee (NEC) meeting in 2002.

Mr Ramatlhodi was present in that meeting. In the article he details how NEC members called Madiba divisive for having told the NEC that certain of its members had approached him to let him know that dissent was not allowed in the ANC. Madiba was then asked to name the people who made those claims. In his attempt to protect these individuals, he refused to name them — for this he was called a liar. Some even said he wanted to rule from the grave. He was taken to task for this, as we say in Xhosa, bakhwela bezehlela kuye.

Ramatlhodi details how speaker after speaker went after Madiba while Terror Lekota chaired the meeting. He was so insulted that that he never attended another NEC meeting, according to Ramatlhodi.

To quote Ramatlhodi: “The tragedy of the episode is that senior leaders, who today are vocal about the recall of Mbeki as president, were there when Madiba was being violated in the most brutal manner by junior leaders of the movement.

“None of them had the courage to stand up and defend an innocent old man, our former president and icon of our struggle. They must have been genuinely afraid of Mbeki, a president who has somehow turned out to be the ANC itself. He has become larger than the movement. They were scared; I was scared.

“It was, indeed, a very sad day for those of us who were unfortunate to be there as witnesses.”

Obviously, it was not sad enough six years ago for him to speak out; he only realised six years later how sad a day it was. Now that it is politically convenient to speak out, he does.

It’s easy to show courage when you are part of a majority and part of the winning team. True courage is standing for what you believe even when you know in your heart that you have a 100% chance of losing everything you’ve worked for. I have no respect for one who only speaks out when it is easy to do so. He should have spoken out when it wasn’t.

If Ramatlhodi was such a man of honour, why then was he silent? Why did he not stand up for Madiba then? We can only deduce that his silence meant that he agreed with every single word that was said to Madiba.

In his open letter to Terror Lekota, Minister Jeff Radebe savaged Lekota for having presided over that meeting and for having allowed Madiba to be treated in the manner he was. If Ramatlhodi and Jeff Radebe were so concerned at the treatment of Nelson Mandela, why did it take them six years to speak out?

Indeed, if Terror Lekota presided over a period in the ANC where dissent was not permitted, then why should we trust this new party? How different are they going to be from the ANC?

But back to Ramatlhodi: Should we suddenly applaud him for taking a moral stance now? We should all be equally appalled at the manner in which Madiba was verbally attacked by the NEC members. I don’t know who was at the meeting, but we know who the members were: Terror Lekota, Jacob Zuma, Trevor Manuel, Thabo Mbeki, Ngoako Ramatlhodi, Sam Shilowa and many more. None of them said a word in defence of Madiba. Not one according to Ramatlhodi. How dare now they use his name now to get what they want!

This whole saga clearly shows us that no one is innocent. No one has clean hands.

This is clearly an attempt by the ANC to use Nelson Mandela’s name in order to shore up support for itself. What can we make of these leaders who seem to have a moral compass of convenience?

There is no courage in speaking out when it is safe to do so. There is no honour in defending a man’s honour only when it benefits you. Ramatlhodi and Jeff Radebe should have demonstrated their moral fortitude when Madiba was viciously attacked in that meeting, precisely because it was not the politically safe thing to do then. Their political careers were more important than standing up for what was right apparently.

What I have never been able to understand was how Thabo Mbeki, as one man, was able to stifle debate. The men and women who were there, who sat and allowed that to happen from day one, can only blame their lack of courage.

What is the point of speaking out when the majority is speaking out? Courage is not when you speak out when it is safe or beneficial for you to do so.

We need to have leaders who are able to do so especially when it is unsafe to speak out. Right now they are in short supply.

khayav@gmail.com

* first published 20 October 2008 on thoughtleader.co.za/khayadlanga

Government fatcat falls off chair! LMAO

Please nice and kind people, do check out the rest of my blog. khayav.com

Hate it. Love it.

In one week, America will have it’s first black president elect …

By Khaya Dlanga, October 28 2008

… barring some unforeseen event or the Republicans doing what they know what to do best every four years – stealing an election. It’s easy to use the typical and lazy argument that black people support Obama simply because he is black. Naturally, blacks will be proud of him, just like women would have been of Hillary Clinton had she won the nomination instead of Obama. As were Catholics when JFK beat Nixon.

To claim that his skin colour is the only reason black people want him to be president is an insult. That statement assumes that blacks are an unthinking herd that is only governed and motivated by colour. Besides, this simplistic view omits the fact that 88% of black voters voted for John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore got a whopping 90% in 2000. Blacks vote Democrat idiot! If they recall, before the Democratic primaries black people all over America were saying that Obama was not black enough. Of course now he is too black.

I like what Chris Rock says about people who say America can’t have a black president, “Why not? We just had a retarded one.” My second favourite quote about Obama’s candidacy is from comedian and talk show host, Bill Maher, the host of HBO’s Real Time (I watch the programme on the “internets”). He said, “Don’t lie and say you won’t vote for Obama; it’s because he’s smarter than you. That’s why you won’t vote for him. That’s why you voted for Bush twice!”

He will be the first American president in eight years I can say without doubt is smarter than I am. It doesn’t take a lot to be smarter than me. And I hope I can say the same thing about South Africa’s next president.

Obama overcame every single hurdle that has been put before him; sometimes they were not just mere hurdles, they were like the Great Wall of China. Let’s start with his name. Here is a man who has the “misfortune” of having his middle name as “Hussein” in the United States of all places. And he decided to run for president too with that name. As if that wasn’t bad enough, his surname sounds like Osama and his name is Barack. All very “un-American sounding.” Television reporters have often made the mistake of referring to him as “Democratic nominee Barack Osama” on live television. He had to overcome that. He has been accused of being Muslim. I suspect that being called a Muslim is code for terrorist in some parts of the US.

Of course had he been Muslim there should have been nothing wrong with that either. During his hard fought primaries against Hillary Clinton there was a poll that showed that 13% of Americans thought that he was Muslim and a whopping 80% of those said they wouldn’t vote for a Muslim.

When General Collin Powell, (former Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State) a Republican, broke ranks with his own party to endorse Barack Obama, a Democrat, he tackled the Muslim issue in a fashion that I hadn’t heard any major political figure address. He said that he was disturbed by what was permitted to be said by the Republicans. The lazy and anti-intellectual wing of the Republican Party said that Powell endorsed Obama because he is also black. (Interestingly, the ANC has been displaying some anti-intellectual signs of late.)

Powell gave the example of an elderly lady who said at a McCain rally during a Q&A session, “Well, you know that Obama is a Muslim?” McCain grabbed the microphone from the lady and said, “No ma’am, he’s an American.”

Powell said, “The correct answer is he is not a Muslim, he is a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim kid believing that he/she can be president?” Then he went on to admonish senior members of his party, the Republicans, for implying that Obama is a Muslim and might be associated with terrorists.

He went on to talk about a photo assay about soldiers that had died in Iraq. He mentioned a picture he saw of a mother in a cemetery; she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. The headstone had her son’s name and awards. “At the very top of the tombstone was not a Cross, or the Star of David, it had a Crescent and a Star of Islamic faith … he was an American.” No one has said that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim and an American at the same time as Collin Powell. No one has refuted the silent bigotry that being Muslim is un-American with the same eloquence and intellectual fluidity as Collin Powell.

Then there is Reverend Jeremiah Wright who almost single-handedly sank Obama’s hopes. His sermons after 9/11 when he railed against America, which essentially said that America got what it deserved. “God bless America,” he said. “No, God damn America.” Suddenly Hillary saw a glimmer of hope; maybe she stood a chance after all. Instead of addressing the crisis in a typical politician’s manner – managing and spinning the crisis, he did the opposite. He decided to tackle the issue of race in the United States head on and spoke to Americans as if they were adults in his great speech, what I believe to be his greatest speech, “A more perfect union.” He survived that because he spoke about race in a way that had never been done before; he addressed white fears and black fears all at once.

Then there was Hillary Clinton. People forget how tough Obama is. They look at him and see the nice guy with an easy flashy smile; the ladies see a guy they’d introduce to their mothers. Obama is one tough SOB. This is the guy that defeated the most powerful political machine in American history. Hillary Clinton. I’m sorry, that should be a plural: the Clintons.

It is a miracle that he has gone this far. He is a black man, with a father from Africa. He has a Muslim middle name. His surname rhymes with Osama. His preacher almost sank his presidential aspirations. He can’t show emotion, because if he does then he will be seen as the typical, angry black man. He has little experience. He didn’t just run against one Clinton, he ran against two, and one a popular former president. The Republicans paint him as one who palls around with terrorists. The list is endless.

Barack Obama has destiny written all over him. He is one of those rare individuals whose mark of destiny is hard to miss. He knows it. We know it. He knows we know it. But we should not mark him as a great man yet. Because destiny must be fulfilled, for before it is, it is mere potential. And potential is nothing without results.

Because of his self-awareness, he is humble enough to poke fun at the Messianic expectations that have been set on him. Just two weeks ago at the Al Smith dinner (he was the first Catholic to run for the presidency of the United States) where both candidates were invited to poke fun at one another, Obama said of himself, “Contrary to the rumours you may have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton, sent here by my father Jo Ell to save the planet earth.” There was much laughter after this.

What a breath of fresh air he will be, God willing.

first published on www.thoughtleader.co.za on October 28 2008

Juluis Malema should shut the f*** up, maybe not.*

I am not one prone to the indiscriminate use of profanity. In fact, those who know me well will tell you that I rarely descend to this sort of level. But Julius’ ability to spew out the most outlandish statements has reduced my I.Q to levels I didn’t think possible. This is my excuse for the title of this blog. The problem with listening to some of the things that he says leaves one even stupider for having heard them. For that, he should not be forgiven. The things he says not only defy logic, but stupidity. He over compensates for his lack of intellectual curiosity with his bellicose statements, which he mistakes for coherence.

Once again, on 11 February 2009 Mr Malema did what he does best (perhaps the worst), he opened his mouth. He insulted the minister of education, Naledi Pandor, a member of his own political party, accusing her of having a fake accent. His statement could also be understood to mean that any black person who happens to have gone to a private school or a so-called Model C school all his life is using nothing but a fake accent. The only genuine accent apparently is the one he has.

Both the minister and the president of the ANCYL are eloquent individuals. However Malema is eloquent in buffoonery. As a supporter of COPE I hope and pray that he uses his substandard rhetorical abilities more frequently.

Last year he tried to insult COPE’s first deputy president, Mbhazima Shilowa, by calling him a security guard, recalling his humble beginnings. As though to say there is something wrong with being a security guard. To demonstrate his lack of foresight, he did not stop to think that his statement could be insulting to the very constituency his political party is meant to speak to. If I were a security guard why would I vote for a party that seemingly has no respect for my profession?

The sort of dangerous and frightening statements he is reported to have said on October 27, 2208 could lead this nation to genocide. To quote The Times on line, “Under Mbeki, the resources of the country were distributed to certain individuals and a certain tribe,” he said, alluding to Mbeki’s Xhosa heritage. “Not everyone benefited. But under [ANC president Jacob] Zuma we expect everyone to benefit.”

This sort of blanket statement said without an iota of evidence has the ability to incite the people of this nation into an unnecessary blood bath. Of all the things we have had the misfortune of hearing from Malema, this has to be the most dangerous, therefore it should be the most unacceptable. All senior members of the ANC should have condemned this incitement of tribalism in the strongest possible terms instead of closing ranks around him, which is their reflexive reaction.

If, as he so claimed, that only a certain tribe benefited when Thabo Mbeki was president, can he explain to us why the Eastern Cape is still the poorest province in the country? The richest black man in the country by his thinking should be from the Eastern Cape or the Western Cape for that matter. In fact, the wealthiest black people in this country should be from the Cape provinces.

If he is talking about the leadership within his party he should apply some logic, something he seems to be in short supply of. I shall help him along and give him a bit of a history lesson about his party.

Historically, the Eastern Cape is the ANC’s biggest province by membership, and has been for the longest time. (Of course COPE is changing the political landscape in leaps and bounds now.) Naturally, the vast majority of people elected into leadership positions would be from that part of the world by virtue of the Eastern Cape having the greatest number of the party’s supporters. Add the Western Cape to that number. For years, large sections of KwaZulu-Natal voted IFP. Thus the vote from that part of the world was split between the ANC and the IFP. The consequence of this is that the leadership has shown a slightly disproportionate Cape slant. One does not need to be a brain surgeon to make these deductions. In fact, one does not even need a matric.

No one has single-handedly driven young black intelligentsia from the ANC to COPE with greater ferocity than young Julius Malema. I don’t understand how and why he is allowed to carry on speaking (but as a COPE supporter I hope he is allowed to speak more often. He is our greatest election tool). The more Jacob Zuma, Matthew Phosa, Cyril Ramaphosa, Pallo Jordan and Gwede Mntashe allow him to speak, the more supporters COPE gets.

In October 2009, he was on Kaya FM. I was astonished by ANCYL president’s assertions that being a youth somehow earned him the right to be impetuous, belligerent and disrespectful. I must politely disagree (although I must admit I am tempted to disagree impolitely) with the man. Youth does not give one a free pass for foolhardiness, disrespect and impulsiveness just as maturity in years does not give one the automatic right to wisdom, level-headedness and patience.

The ANC has descended into anti intellectualism and ideological incoherence with the likes of Julius Malema. Every single young person in this country ought to be embarrassed by him. We should allow him to carry on speaking, and as young people we will speak at the ballots by voting COPE.

On behalf of COPE, I would strongly recommend that he continues to open his mouth.

*this was published last year but I deicided to updated it, thanks to Juluis’s latest outbusrst.

I want to marry a white woman

Obama, Mandela, MLK speech mash up

The ANC does not own liberation history

Allow me to make a bold claim: it was not the ANC that brought us liberation. It was a vehicle that the people used to bring themselves to freedom. Just like the newfound Cope cannot claim to be the defender of the Constitution. The people are merely using it as a vehicle to defend the constitution.

I have been somewhat disturbed by some things that I have heard from certain leaders of the ANC of late. Words such as: “Cope is stealing our history, it is stealing our leaders.”

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but does the history of the struggle for freedom not belong to all South Africans? To claim ownership is to belittle the contribution of those who belong not only to South African history textbooks, but also to the pages of world history. Freedom belongs to no party.

The moment the ANC feels that it has the right to the history of the struggle, it won’t be too long before it tells us that we, the citizens of this country owe it, and as a result must accept anything it does to the country because without it we would not be free. We cannot, and must not allow ourselves to be held hostage by the ANC. Or any party of that matter. Whatever we may owe as a people, we owe to the red, blue, black, white, green and yellow colours of the flag.

The people who contributed to the Freedom Charter were not necessarily ANC card-carrying members. They were South Africans from all walks of life who wanted to be free. Some even contributed despite their white privilege because they desired that all people enjoy the freedoms they also enjoyed.

When Nelson Mandela and others languished in prison for so many years, it was not just for members of the ANC, but for all South Africans. They did not only struggle for black South Africans, but for those white South Africans who were imprisoned by their own prejudices. Yes, they fought for the racists too.

If history belongs to a certain party then that means Oliver Thambo, Nelson Mandela, Chief Albert Luthuli, Beyers Naude, Walter Sisulu, Ruth First, Winnie Madikizela Mandela and many others should not be taught in schools, but rather to those whose parents belong to a certain party.

To allow people to carry on talking in this manner about the heroes of the struggle is to make them smaller than they are. Then we can say that the ANC does not appreciate what it helped bring. We shall all be eternally grateful to the ANC, and we cannot belittle what it did. However, by claiming ownership of the struggle, it belittles itself.

Robert Sobukwe does not belong to the PAC, nor does Steven Bantu Biko belong to the Black Consciousness Movement.

Therefore, the people of this nation have no loyalty to any party – owe no favours to anyone. But their allegiance belongs to the country that many bled and died for.

Once again, let us cherish the history of this nation by not making it belong to a group.

Nandos takes on ANC, hilarity ensues

Happiness. We all want it, but what is it?

Why I’m endorsing COPE*

As an official blogger and egomaniac I thought that it was incumbent upon me to make my position clear given the current state of our nation. The desire to write this endorsement is also driven by the false notion that people might take what I have to say seriously. As the title suggests, I fully endorse the Congress of the People (Cope).

I have defended the ANC on numerous occasions on the “internets” (George Bush thinks that the internet is the “internets”), particularly on the video-sharing website known as YouTube. My defence of the ANC and the government got me into some heated exchanges with some fellow South Africans. I have even taken heat from right wing racists. (I’ve always wondered why are there no left wing radical racists? Just a thought). I digress.

I have even gone as far as to say that if Jacob Zuma does become the president of the Republic it wouldn’t be the end of the world because the world’s leading ratings agencies like Moody’s and others said that there would be no major policy shifts if Zuma takes over. I said these things after Polokwane. As uncertain as I was of a Zuma presidency at the time, I thought it prudent to give the man and the new leadership a chance after his camp was elected into office.

I went on to quote Warren Buffet who once said, “You should invest in a business that even a fool can run, because someday a fool will.” I made the example that South Africa has a strong constitution and an independent judiciary. So even if a fool runs the country it will be fine because of the structures in place. I was also fully aware of the fact that some people would deliberately twist my words and imply that I called Jacob Zuma a fool.

I have even gone as far as to say that white people need to join the ANC and stop moaning so that they can change it if they don’t like it. If you complain from the sidelines, nothing will change I said. I was taken to task for making these suggestions. But these suggestions stimulated the kind of debate I had hoped they would on YouTube.

I said all those things because I believed them at time. Indeed the ANC will change to what it was meant to be, perhaps even better than what it was meant to be, but it won’t happen next year or tomorrow. The ANC won’t just change. When it finally decides to change it will be too late. It will be because it will be forced to. The most dynamic organisations are the ones that change before they have to.

The reason I endorse Cope is because of a Martin Luther King quote Barack Obama often used during his campaign. He would say, “I am running because of what Dr King referred to as ‘the fierce urgency of now.’” Obama never quoted the whole passage; he always quoted those five words, “the fierce urgency of now.”

Allow me to quote Dr King’s entire passage: “We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood-it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, “Too late.” There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect.”

I don’t want my generation to be in that invisible book that says we were not vigilant and that we were neglectful when we saw that we were headed towards a cliff.

As Dr King so eloquently put it, “There is such a thing as being too late.” Zimbabwe is a case in point. When the people of Zimbabwe decided to stand up, it was too late.

I believe that we cannot wait for another five years for the ANC to change. The world is in a global financial crisis. We cannot afford to wait when the poor get poorer. We cannot afford to wait another five years for justice to be served differently depending on one’s political standing. We cannot afford to wait another five years for the ruling party to remove the president from office at a whim. We cannot afford to have the entire machinery of the ruling party dedicated to making sure that an individual never gets his day in court. We cannot afford to wait when our judges are being called counter revolutionaries. We cannot afford to be too late.

I want to be able to say to my children that when the time came for me to stand up, I did. And not only did I stand, I walked and ran. Because standing is not enough; acting is what counts.

I support Cope’s call of having a president elected by the people. Right now, the people are under the impression that they elect a president when in fact it is parliament that does.

I endorse Cope because it will be accountable to the people. The leadership will not tell the people what to do; it is the people that will tell the leadership what to do. The people lead the movement.

I support Cope because it will be South Africa’s first truly diverse political party, where all members of our country will be represented in their numbers. The enthusiasm for Cope spans racial, religious and class lines.

One of the things that impressed me the most about Cope was when one of its youth leaders said something off colour about the president of the ruling party. An apology was issued. There were no excuses, no attempt to spin what had been said, there was no going to a laager to defend the indefensible. Cope did not wait for other political parties to speak out before an apology was issued. We cannot say the same thing of the ruling party. We waited for months for an apology for some of the statements that were made by its youth leader. Even the apology was a non-apology; they went on to blame the media. One of the things I’ve learnt is never ruin an apology with an excuse.

Cope is not perfect. No political party is. It would be a mistake to believe that there is. Even churches cannot claim that. But what I hope Cope will do, is at least to try to make this country move forward, look ahead and not backwards. I know that it will give the people of this nation hope that there are better days ahead for us as a nation.

I am not unmindful of the fact that some people will ask me how I can endorse an organisation that has no policies. Well, the people set the policies and I believe in the wisdom of South Africans. Who better than they that live the day to day to existence to set a policy than someone who no longer knows what it is like to live as an ordinary South African? They know better than any government official.

These are just some of the reasons I endorse Cope.

*first published December 3 on thoughtleader.co.za

Stay positive, a little message for this new year. Forward it to someone else.

I believe in you. A little message of positivety. This was my very first video on YouTube.

Obama’s Inauguration Speech 2009

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land – a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America – they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted – for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things – some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn. Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions – that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act – not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions – who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them – that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works – whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account – to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day – because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control – and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart – not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.

And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more. Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort – even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West – know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment – a moment that will define a generation – it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends – hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism – these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence – the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed – why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.

Barack Obama and the burden to be great

By Khaya Dlanga

Barack Obama expects to be great. Please allow me to digress before I delve into the reasons. Rarely has any American president inherited a country in such shambles. And so it is with great interest that the world looks at this defining moment in the history of America. Because, let’s face it, people generally have low expectations for blacks. The travesty is that many black people are guilty of being active participants in this low expectations disease. When then senator Barack Obama announced that he would be running for the presidency of the United States of America, finding a black person who believed that he could win was as difficult as finding a prostitute walking the streets of heaven.

I followed the American election in 2004 with great interest because I firmly believed that Americans would not make the same mistake twice. In my mind there was no way they would elect George Walker Bush twice. As I crawled the internet for news about the 2004 Democratic National Convention I read news reports singing the praises of this young black state senator from Illinois. I searched the internet for his speech. This was the BY era, Before YouTube.

When I found the speech I told myself that here stands a future American president. Of course I didn’t think he would be president in four years. Eight to twelve years seemed more realistic. It made sense. He was not yet a United States senator. He was a mere state senator for crying out loud.

But when he announced that he was running for the presidency early in 2007 I made an impassioned video on YouTube stating my excitement and belief that Obama would be America’s first black president. I got more abuse from African Americans than I anticipated. I couldn’t believe the low expectations.

The kind of comments I got were that White America still harboured a lot of racist feelings. They would never allow a black man to win the presidency. It was just in America’s nature to put the black man down. America has not changed. Of course there were far worse comments. I was told to go back to Africa, the irony of course was that I was in Africa. While these people were in the slumber of cynicism, they didn’t realise that America had and was changing. America still has the capacity to change. And to surprise.

Today, the very same people who did not believe he would win claim not to have had a single shred of doubt he would win. This reminds me of the great difficulty I have of finding a white person that actually voted for the National Party during the apartheid era.

Ironically now that he has won, he is not just expected to be a good president. Being good will be tantamount to being like George Walker Bush. He cannot be good. He must be great. The only modern American president to have expectations of greatness thrust upon him was John F Kennedy. But he did not live long enough.

As I wrote in one of my blogs a while back, and so to quote myself, “He is not unaware of his burden to be great. Just two weeks ago at the Al Smith (the first Catholic to run for the presidency of the United States) dinner where both candidates (Obama and McCain) were invited to poke fun at one another, Obama said of himself, “Contrary to the rumours you may have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was actually born on Krypton, sent here by my father Jo Ell to save the planet earth.” It’s an amusing take on what he knows and what everybody knows. Unlike Jesus he is not expected to walk on water, he is expected to levitate. People almost see him as some deity. But he is a mere man who has chosen to be extraordinary.

Well, he certainly expects to be great. Any president who can meet the challenges that America faces can only be great. Take a look at these lines from his inaugural address, “Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America – they will be met.” America – they will be met. He said those words with conviction and so we believed him.

Then later he goes on to say, “In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned.” He knows that he has to earn greatness. It is not a given because it is expected. From him who much is given, much is expected.

Obama’s confidence in his abilities cannot be understated. Back in 2004, the day he was due to deliver the speech that made him at the Democratic National Convention, Marty Nesbitt, a successful black businessman, says that Obama was calm. According to the New Yorker:

Obama has always had a healthy understanding of the reaction he elicits in others, and he learned to use it to his advantage a very long time ago. Marty Nesbitt remembers Obama’s utter calm the day he gave his celebrated speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, in Boston, which made him an international celebrity and a potential 2008 Presidential candidate. “We were walking down the street late in the afternoon,” Nesbitt told me. “And this crowd was building behind us, like it was Tiger Woods at the Masters.”

“Barack, man, you’re like a rock star,” Nesbitt said.

“Yeah, if you think it’s bad today, wait until tomorrow,” Obama replied.

“What do you mean?”

“My speech,” Obama said, “is pretty good.”

Some may call this arrogance, but I believe that he just sets very high standards for himself. Standards he expects to meet. Impossibly high standards he often meets.

Had he not demonstrated signs of greatness along his path to the presidency we might not have had as great expectations as we do as a people. The manner in which he dealt with the Reverend Wright saga was one such demonstrate of a man of extraordinary makings.

Of course he will disappoint here and there. How could he not? He is human.

In the same way that Bush’s failed presidency did not surprise many of us foreigners, Obama’s success will not be a surprise. It is expected.

Rarely has there been such a wide gap of expectation between two men who would assume the mantle of most powerful man in the world. When George Walker Bush, the 43rd president of the United States was elected, the peoples of the world had nothing but low expectations of him. We were wrong, he exceeded them beyond our imagination. He left office with two unfinished wars, an unprecedented deficit, an ailing global economy. At one point the price of oil was over $140 a barrel on his watch. He left a major US city to drown. Now there is Gaza too. The list of incompetence is endless. And he left a black man to clean up the mess. Ok, that was meant to be joke.

Barack Obama expects to be a great president too. He has often referred to Abraham Lincoln. He was sworn in, he placed his hand on the very same Bible that was used by Abraham Lincoln when he took the oath of office. He is the only president to have been sworn in on that Bible since Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps most presidents just didn’t want to set themselves up to such symbolic great expectations. He even announced his run for the presidency on the very same steps as Abe Lincoln did when announcing his presidency.

Lincoln was skinny, so is Obama. Lincoln had large ears. So does Obama. Except for one difference, Abe was not considered a good looking man. In fact he is said to have retorted to a senator who called him two-faced in the following manner, “If I were two faced, do you think I’d be wearing this one?”

The only president to have inherited a worse America must have been Abraham Lincoln. He had to prevent the union from being divided. If war was the only option to keeping a United States of America united, then he would make room for a civil war. It was just one crisis. Obama is facing several. And the world looks to him to lead it too.

As Obama stepped on the podium to deliver his inaugural address I saw a man carrying the great expectations on his shoulder. His shoulders seem strong enough to carry this burden. I don’t think he sees this as a burden. To quote someone else other than myself – Bono. When the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP)  awarded him the Chairman’s Award, he made an impassioned speech where he said the following words as he spoke about us as being the generation that could end extreme poverty, “This is not a burden. It’s an adventure.” I suspect that Obama does not see this as a burden at all.

From now on, blacks no longer have the excuse of setting low expectations for themselves. Thank you President Obama.

Should Mbeki publicly endorse Cope but remain an ANC member?

Imagine a scenario where former president Thabo Mbeki decides to announce his endorsement and intentions to vote for Cope but decides to remain a member of the ANC. I cannot imagine a situation that could rattle the feathers of some of the over inflated egos at Luthuli House more. Some of those egos are “too big, too wide, too strong, won’t fit they’re too much and they talk like this but they can’t even back it up.” “Quoting” Beyonce while discussing politics seems a tad out of place. Perhaps I should make a better analogy. Let me point to the most widely followed election in recent memory. The US elections.

(Just an aside here. I was commenting on someone’s status on Facebook about something they had said regarding the ANC. In my comment I quoted Dr Martin Luther King; someone then commented saying, “Trust Cope to quote Martin Luther King who, at the time, was speaking about equality during the 1960s. What relevance does Dr King have to our democracy,” as if there was something wrong with quoting people from other countries. I’m afraid if that person sees this blog post I will be taken to task for making references to America.)

Two weeks before the American general elections in 2008 a very well respected Republican sat before Tom Brokaw, the host of MSNBC’s much-respected Meet the Press TV programme. This particular Republican, according to opinion polls, had been the most respected American for years. In fact, had his wife not forbidden him from running in 2000, would most certainly have been the Republican nominee for president, meaning that he would have ended up president of the United States instead of George Walker (Dubya) Bush. He would have been America’s first black president.

This Republican gentleman and former National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State, General Colin Luther Powell endorsed Barack Obama, a member of the Democratic Party, for the presidency of the United States. During his endorsement he mentioned that he was and still is a member of the Republican Party but felt that Obama would make a better president than his fellow party man, John McCain. Although he endorsed an individual, it was essentially an endorsement of the Democratic Party’s platform.

General Powell made that endorsement fully aware of the impact it might have on the fence sitters. Here was an established, highly respected man going out of his way to make known his intentions of voting for a member of a different party to that of his own. Although he allowed himself to be used to bring falsified evidence before the United Nations, which led to the invasion of Iraq, perhaps the endorsement was a way of correcting that error.

He was not hounded out of the Republican Party after his announcement. Of course they were not happy with the endorsement. It was his right to express his preferences. Some tried to spin it by saying he was only endorsing Obama because he is black. Maybe it is time our country matured enough to allow people to express their preferences without fear or favour.

Unfortunately I don’t see Luthuli House viewing Mbeki’s endorsement of Cope as his democratic right. He would most likely be called a traitor at first. Then names and a host of animals that can be found in a zoo. The endorsement would then be ridiculed. They would say that he wants to rule from the grave. They would accuse him of bitterness. They would say that people aren’t going to switch from the ANC and vote for Cope simply because Mbeki decided to do so. The funny thing is they would spend an awful lot of time telling us how insignificant the endorsement was. They would also appear on every SABC station telling us how it would not make a dent in the ANC’s support base, which would make you how wonder: is it really inconsequential? Fikile Mbalula would say that he was right all along; Mbeki was behind Cope all along. Then Julius would call for him to be disciplined or call for his expulsion.

I had the rare opportunity of seeing Julius Malema and Fikile Mbalula at a wedding I too had the privilege of attending some time last year. While all the guests were having tea before the reception, they stood together and talked, like two lonely figures. No one really walked up to them, to talk to them. Then later at the reception the master of ceremonies made the following pronouncement, “I see Mr Malema is also here.” There was much laughter. Make of the laughter what you will. But I digress, as usual. Excuse the ADD.

Should senior members of the ANC who might be sympathetic to Cope publicly announce their intentions to vote for Cope even though they remain members of the ANC? Should they come out and say that they are doing so in order to strengthen democracy and not necessarily weaken the ANC? Will a stronger opposition not in fact strengthen them? Maybe not in terms of numbers, but in strengthening the democratic processes within the party?

Members of the ANC should have the freedom to endorse and to state their intentions of voting for Cope even though they are still senior members of the ANC without the fear of being suspended.

If the rumours are true that the ANC is busy denying – President Motlanthe’s intentions of refusing the position of deputy president should Zuma become president, then it is difficult not to view his discomfort of serving as deputy to Zuma as a vote of no confidence in his presidency.

If, in the next few weeks and months, people decide to go public and announce that they will vote Cope but will remain members of the ANC, then the ruling party should understand one thing — these people do not love the ANC any less. It’s just that they love their country more.

Women and the Jesus excuse. Good Lord I hate it!

There is nothing more annoying than asking a girl out and she gives you the, “I’m sorry I can’t go out with you because I’ve found Jesus,” line. As if Jesus was lost. And now that she has found him, he needs her to look after him until he is nursed back to health. Worse, they say I’m trying to get my relationship with Jesus in order first. I think that an honest, “Dude, I don’t want to go out with you,” will do. It bruises the ego but at least it’s honest. Besides, the male ego is resilient and optimistic. It’s too big. It’s too wide. It’s too strong. It won’t fit. It’s too much. Basically a really big ego.

A friend of mine who shall remain Khaya (yes, laugh) once got the Jesus line. Being the eternal optimist he said to the dear lady, “At least I lost to a better man. He’s perfect, how can I compete?” So I, (I mean Khaya.) Let’s try this again. So Khaya didn’t take this as being turned down. But he knew he knew he had the wool pulled over his eyes. One day however, Khaya went back to her and told her to say what she didn’t want to say. He said, “You know what, I want you to say it because I’m not going to say it for you.” He didn’t want someone try to protect his feelings. (Not that he actually has any. OK, just kidding).

“You can do it.” He coached her. After much encouragement she eventually said it. “It’s not going to happen.” She said it like she didn’t want to say it. My dear friend Khaya leaped to his feet and said, “You see, it’s not so hard. I’m not dead, I’m not crying and Jesus still loves you!” He almost gave her gold star.

Ladies, stay away from using Jesus as an excuse. Sure he’ll forgive you but that line is worse than the favourite guy pick up line, “Don’t I know you from somewhere?” and that’s unforgivable.

Mandela’s endorsement and Tokyo’s hypocrisy

A friend (cyber friend might be more appropriate) of mine made an interesting comment on facebook about Tokyo Sexwale who accused COPE of using old people to get votes. I quote, “I thought Tokyo said they don’t use old people to win votes!”

A few days ago the ANC marched and paraded Nelson Mandela before a crowd, newspapers and television cameras crowing about his endorsement. Perhaps I should quote Tokyo’s criticism of Cope, “”Our mothers are taken, house to house, they are also paraded on TV, these people are performing witchcraft with our mothers… They are liars. You can’t have respect for people who use older people in that fashion.” Does this mean we shouldn’t have respect for the ANC for using an old man who couldn’t even read his own endorsement because he is so frail, weak and tired?

Madiba was well within his rights to endorse the ANC. There was nothing wrong or right with him endorsing the party of his choosing. He was excersing his right to do what he thought was right.

Of course when mamu Epainette Mbeki, the former president’s mother came out to endorse COPE, Tokyo said using old people to get votes was witchcraft. Naturally, he hasn’t called out Jacob Zuma or the ANC for that matter for using an old person to get votes. His silence as the self appointed defender of the elderly is of course not surprising.

Tokyo should not have higher standards for other parties than he has for his own. It is a sad day when we speak of our politicians and say, “What did you expect?” That is what many have come to expect of this once respected man. ANC members have whispered to me and called him an opportunist that can’t be trusted. They have said he will go with whatever side he believes will win. They no longer recognise the comrade they fought with in the 80’s and early 90’s. As his wealth has escalated, his character as a politician has diminished. No one doubts his business acumen, it is his political opportunism that leaves one wondering. Is this just a case of man gaining the world but losing his soul in process?

Should we embrace religion in our politics?

Many are of the opinion that religion has no place in politics. This is an understandable position to take considering the abuses that have been committed in the name of religion, whether it be Islam, Judaism or Christianity. We are too aware of how the Bible was used to justify racism right here in South Africa. None of us are blind to the atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion, especially that of Christianity. However there needs to be a distinction between religion and those who use it to attain power.

I will try (poorly) to defend religion from its very unflattering past. It is best that I use Christianity as an example since I am more familiar with it. In the interests of full disclosure, I must reveal that I am a practising Christian. I am not unmindful of the fact that this revelation may open me up to some derision. It’s almost unkosher to “come out” and admit this. Perhaps a few years from now we will have closet Christians “coming out” and making public declarations of their long held beliefs. Who knows, we might even have Christian Pride Parades along with the gays. (Is it even politically correct to say “gays” these days?) But I digress.

I submit that it is unfair to incriminate religion itself for any wrongs that have been and are being committed in its name. It would be incorrect to blame Islam for the September 11 attacks, just as it would be to level accusations at Christianity for the Spanish Inquisition. There is a vast difference between a religion and its deliberate distortion. People don’t seem to see a distinction between religion and its intentional corruption by power hungry egomaniacs that use it as a means to an end. That end is very often to achieve political power and dominion over people. Religion itself is always blameless — those who abused its teachings for personal gain are not.

We can no more blame Christianity than we can blame capitalism for the factory owners in China who force children to labour in their factories hour upon hour like slaves. In the instance of the factory owner we can blame greed, not capitalism. Just like we cannot point fingers at Stalin’s atheism or communism for his brutality. Only the lusts for power, greed or just good old madness are to blame.

I am by no means suggesting that a theocracy is the solution to our radar-less leadership. That would be last thing we need. Theocracies often end up being oppressive regimes in their noble but misguided intentions of providing some sort of moral compass for citizens. Simply stated, morality cannot be legislated, only one’s heart can do that. We can put laws against certain basic moral laws like murder and theft, but can we really put one in prison for telling a lie or for having sex before marriage? Obviously not.

If our leaders followed the precepts of the good books, I doubt our land would be in the state it is in. Of course I expect comments that will say what about the verses that call on us to stone sinners, since that too is a religious command. I would say that is the Old Testament. But this is not what I am writing about.

The laws that we put in place, including our highly regarded constitution, which was put in place by some of the brightest legal minds in our country, have no control over conscience — the conscience is the domain of the divine. It is that thing that causes us sleepless nights when we know we have done wrong, even if the written laws claim otherwise. Running away from one’s conscience is virtually impossible. This is where the moral code comes in.

Not to say that it is impossible to be moral while not practicing religion. I will be the first to admit that some areligious people are extremely moral, as some religious are not. In fact, one of my very best friends calls himself an atheist and he is nicer than I am. Much nicer.

Religion, if practiced as it ought to be, without selfish motivation, will mould better civil servants, leaders and by large a more humane society. The Bible warns against “them that make wicked laws: and when they write, write injustice; to rob the needy of justice, and to take what is right from the poor of my people, that widows maybe their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless.” Isaiah 10:1. Where there is corruption this is precisely what happens. It robs from the poor, the widows and the fatherless.

I am sure all major religions share the same basic tenets. In fact, these are the basic teachings of Ubuntu. If one believes that what one is doing is a higher calling than self-enrichment, then they will serve the people, not just a political party or a position. When their conscience calls them to speak out against an injustice they will, regardless of whom speaking out may offend. It is far better to offend a powerful person than it is to go against one’s conscience.

Recently, we have seen on the news that South Africa is suffering something of a moral crisis. This is where religion comes in. People don’t have faith in their leaders anymore; there is a general feeling that there is a moral deficit amongst our leaders. Our leaders lead by example. As much as we would like to think that we are not sheep, unfortunately the vast majority of people are, for it is far safer to follow without question.

The need to distance our politics from religion by any means necessary has created a chasm between governing and the morality of our leaders.

Many of our great leaders were motivated and sustained by their religious faith in their fight against injustice. The great late president of the African National Congress, Chief Albert Luthuli, was a man of the cloth, and I quote from the ANC website, “As a practising Christian, Chief Luthuli genuinely and sincerely believed in the well-being, happiness and dignity of all human beings. Because of his convictions, he sacrificed all prospects of personal gains and comforts and dedicated his life to the cause and service of his fellowmen.”

Oliver Tambo too was a religious man. He did not leave his religion at the door when he fought for his people. Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr amongst others were never shy to use religious language to argue the justness of their cause. Of course there are people who corrupt religious language to justify ill intent.

Gandhi too was a religious man, a Hindi that was also deeply influenced by the words of Christ.

A missionary who went by the name E. Stanley Jones once met with Gandhi and asked, “Mr. Gandhi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?”

Ghandi replied, “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

This is the problem with our politics also. So many of our leaders proclaim to fight for a just and prosperous South Africa, but what we see instead are the very same leaders become prosperous while the rest of our countrymen become poorer. Their words are often noble and their actions questionable.

Perhaps, before we can cry out for better leaders, we ought to become better citizens. And that means we must abhor corruption where we see it, speak out against injustice, reject leaders that lead us astray for if we follow them we go over the cliff. The sad reality is that they never go off the cliff, the rest of us do.

Let us be great citizens, only then will we get great leaders.

I will end off with this quote from India’s Jawaharlal Nehru, “If you are to suffer, you should suffer in the interest of the country.”

Let’s debate.

African adopts white child (Credit crunch

The credit crunch has taken it’s toll on struggling bankers in America. Now Africans are adopting white kids from America.

Shilowa on intimidation of COPE members from Jobs

I think I’d be great friends with Julius Malema. Seriously.

And I mean it. I think he is a pretty pleasant and probably funny guy too. I can’t help but imagine exchanging slaps on the back and doubling back in laughter as we have chats about whatever it is that young men talk about. As much as I take issue with some of the things he has said and what he stands for politically, that does not mean that I wouldn’t or shouldn’t get along with him personally.

There is no doubt that some people might take issue with what I just said. Particularly those who see Malema as a fumbling idiot who does not know when to shut up. That would be understandable considering some of the things I have written about him. As people, we tend to have no separation between the public figure and the fact that he is also an average guy who likes to have a drink and talk about girls. Those of us who are not public figures all have friends we disagree with on almost everything – but we don’t stop being friends simply because we disagree. We need to be able to separate the personality from their politics.

I imagine some of my friends would give me odd looks if I told them that I went go-carting with Julius Malema and Jacob Zuma (not that I have, don’t start spreading rumours now).  “How could you hang out with them after all the things they have said?” Well, I would remind those people that in my friendship circles I have friends who are pastors and atheists, friends who are womanisers and friends who have had the same and only girlfriend for the past five years. In our dealings with the complexities of human engagement, we all have these contradictions in our friendship circles. Why then can we not have friends who hold differing political views without being enemies? But that does not mean we can’t be honest in our disagreements with them.

One’s political position does not define who they are; it defines what they stand for politically. We are not our politics. We are people before we have a political position.

Thabo Mbeki is probably not the easiest person in the world to get along with, but that does not mean that one should dislike his politics simply because one does not like him as a person. I imagine being a friend with him requires a lot of work, he must not see you as just a waste of his time if you are to be his friend. I also suspect that once he has brought you into his inner circle you would have great laughs, and probably an intellectually meaningful relationship.

We should not vote for people simply because we like them.  Nor should we not vote for them because we don’t like their personalities. Competence, character and ability seem to run a distant second when people vote, which is most unfortunate. How else can we justify the fact that most voters don’t trust Zuma but somehow he still garners more votes according to opinion polls? I understand that someone is going to comment and say that it’s not him, it’s because of the party.

Like I said, I’d have a drink with Julius, I’d tease him about his political views because I know he is set in his ways. I don’t see him changing them. He would probably tease me about mine too. Much hilarity would ensue I imagine. Naturally I’d have more to laugh about. I’d talk about showers and fake accents amongst other things. I don’t know, maybe I’m just idealistic.

There are many people I agree with on almost every issue yet I cannot stand. Just as there are people who agree with me but just cannot stand me. Understandably, if I were someone else I wouldn’t stand myself either.

Just to make things clear, I’m not ANCist or anything, some of my best friends are in the ANC. I think I’m beginning to sound like a Malema, Bush and Zuma apologist. Having said what I have, I am still voting COPE and I hope you all do.

If you disagree with me, know that you are an enemy

When I wrote the post about making friends with Julius Malema I was making a larger point on agreeing to disagree.
I am disturbed by the manner in which we conduct debate in this country. Disagreeing with a politician or someone in a powerful position earns one unflattering labels. When anybody raises views contrary to our own, we react emotionally and go on the attack. We don’t sit back to consider the possibility that the opposing view might have some value, even if we don’t agree with it. If you happen to work for a government institution and happen to support COPE for example, the days of your employment might be numbered. Our consciences are being bullied – the stomach is used as a weapon.

In our disagreements we are disagreeable. We seem to hold the view that he who disagrees with me must be an enemy. This is how COPE has been treated by the ruling party since it’s inception. And so we employ words most vile, demeaning and, if at all possible, humiliating. We saw examples of this when President Thabo Mbeki wrote his letters attacking the likes of Archbishop Desmond Tutu a few years ago. Of course the president had the best things to say about the archbishop as soon as they shared the view that Jacob Zuma could not be president. Those of you who have read any of my blogs know that I think highly of our former president, just because hold him in high regard ] does not mean I found everything he did or said agreeable.  As citizens we should not be afraid of criticizing our leaders, nor fail to praise them when it is deserved. Not only do you owe it to yourselves but your country and the ideals of democracy and free speech.

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln, who said during his first inaugural address, perhaps addressing the man he defeated: “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” It is my hope that as we debate and comment on the state of the nation, we will be virtuous enough to heed Lincoln’s call for these bonds of affection that should not be broken in the heat of debate. The truth is many of those who left the ANC for COPE are friends with people in the ruling party. So I urge you, whatever side of the fence you are on, let not the bonds affection be broken by the pettiness of politics.

COPE’s presidential candidate Mvume Dandala put this very well during a radio interview when he said, “When you are building an alternative voice you are not trying to create enemies, but to get more people involved in making the country work better.” I hope the members of the ruling party understand this.

In politics, I have come to realize, the virtue of humility seems to have no place; it is seen as a weakness, and arrogance as a strength — how far off the truth that is. He who shouts the loudest is smartest and the strongest. It is sad indeed.

If we carry on this way, it won’t be long before we get to a point where questioning views held by those in leadership positions are regarded as unpatriotic. We have seen this happen in the United States; anyone who spoke up against the war in Iraq was called unpatriotic. We are coming dangerously close. Some comrades in the mass democratic movement have began to use the term “counter-revolutionary” with liberal ease in order to stifle debate. The possible firing of Dr Barney Pityana will set a dangerous precedent. Opposing views are not allowed, or you will be left in the wilderness – that seems to be the message.

As a consequence, men and women of this country will cease to heed their consciences, but rather worship at the altar of the state tender. A friend of mine who disagrees with the ruling party on almost every level cannot and will not admit this in public because he said, “My conscience will not feed me, tenders will.” His life depends on tenders. People like this support the ruling party without any sense of irony. The altar of the tender is that powerful. Can we blame him or judge him for this? We cannot. But what we should try to do to people like this is to convince them that “coming out” preserves the greater good.

Many of us are patriots who love this nation. We say what we think is wrong as one would tell someone one loves dearly, because love dictates that one doesn’t shut up if one thinks that the loved one is driving down a cliff at high speed — even at low speed, for that matter.

Unfortunately some of us have misguided ways of demonstrating their affection for this, the southern-most country on the African continent. It reminds me of an abusive husband who belittles his wife by telling her that she is nothing without him. The cruel lover says this in order to control her. (In our case control is in the form of government jobs and contracts.) When she does leave and manages to succeed, the jealous ex-husband has only unflattering things to say about her.

Since many of us profess to love South Africa, I want to know the following:

How would we treat her if she were a lover?

How would we help her reach her goals?

Would we gloat if she failed and say, ‘We knew you couldn’t do it’?

We need to ask ourselves: How would we treat South Africa if she happened to be our true love?

I am saddened that we strive to feed our obese egos instead of finding ways to improve debate. The more we focus on our fragile egos, the less we focus on how we can help improve the nation.

We have to look deep into ourselves. No one is innocent. Not COPE, not the ANC, or any of the other parties. Our hands aren’t clean. I am a sum of all who agree with me. Those who disagree with me build my character. They are the ones I have to thank for helping me think the way I do.

What will destroy this country is an army of uniformity when it comes to its thinkers. We will die a painful, intellectual death if people perpetuate a certain school of thought because they want to preserve jobs, or because they are too afraid that they might not be able to find employment because they might have expressed an opinion contrary to that of some powerful figure.

We have forgotten the principles on which the country was founded. Instead we spend our days fighting petty battles. We have become a nation of the petty and arrogant. We slice and dice one another. Our internal battles have become so intense that we are slowly forgetting that we are still trying to fight for our position in the global arena. We have become so inward-looking that we have forgotten that we are competing in a global field. Since president Thabo Mbeki left the scene, our global standing has shrunk at an incredible pace. To this day, AU still sends president Thabo Mbeki to the UN to represent it. Those outside our borders see his value. Jesus Christ was right, “Truly I say to you, no prophet is welcome in his hometown.”

Our inward-looking extends to the economy we’re trying to grow. We make it virtually impossible for foreigners to work here. One of the reasons America became such a force to be reckoned with is because it embraced immigrants with open arms. Immigrants come with different ideas. According to Richard Florida, author of The Rise of the Creative Class, 25% off all high-tech businesses in the US and 50% of all venture-backed companies were started by immigrants.

Dubai is one of the world’s fastest-growing economies because it has no qualms about getting foreign skills. It knows that to be the best, one must get the best. In his book, Florida points out that economies that open up to diverse peoples, immigrants and the likes are much more likely to be innovative and grow because they embrace different ways of thinking.

I am not unmindful of the fact that some will call me idealistic in my thinking. That is the beauty of youth. I am not old enough to know my limits. The reason I have hope for this country is because there are many more young people than older people. We don’t see a reason why we should doubt and limit ourselves.

Please, you are welcome to disagree with me.

Agree to disagree

No means no

COPE: Andile Mazwai’s brilliant ANC analogy

Zuma: Mpshe and NPA show some balls!

Mr. Mpshe needs to be reminded of a little fact about South Africans this week – we are not a people born of cowards, nor men who place personal ambitions above what needs to be done for the people. We are born of men who stood up when it was more comfortable and beneficial to sit down. We are a people born of the same stuff that made Mandela sacrifice his freedom for 27 years; we are born of women who gave birth to Steve Biko who died bravely writing what he liked and what we have come to love. Biko showed the might of the nib of a pen facing off against the barrel of a gun. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword. We are born of the nameless heroes who died fighting so that we could be free one day. This is what we are made of. Men and women who sacrificed despite the immense power and pressures that could have persuaded lesser men and women to do otherwise.

According to news reports we have been told that the NPA (National Prosecutions Authority) will seek to have the corruption charges against the man who could be president, Jacob Zuma, dropped. One must understand the position and the pressures that face the director of the NPA, Mr. Mpshe. There is the easy way out, drop the charges. By dropping them all that will happen will be wide ranging condemnation from opposition parties, the press and civil society. That’s all. If he decides to go ahead he will be pressured by the ANC in every way imaginable. They might even find dirt on him. Now is not the time for cowardice.

History often calls on those in positions of responsibility to choose to do what’s difficult or unpopular. Allowing Zuma to walk will be a popular decision with the electorate. But is it the right thing to do? The men and women of the NPA have history knocking on their doors. What are they willing to do? Mr. Mpshe, in the words of former American vice president, Al Gore, “Sometimes you have to be willing … to pick the hard right over the easy wrong.” We are told that it is not in the national interests to have Jacob Zuma going to court. It is precisely because it is not in the interests of the nation that he should go to court, so that we can judge for ourselves.

What is the hard right? The hard right is to investigate both Zuma and Mbeki if there is reason to investigate the former president. To drop these charges without having these so called tapes heard in court cannot serve our democracy well. We are being told that the former president has done something wrong, yet he has not been afforded the opportunity to defend himself. By dropping them, by implication, that tells us that there is evidence of wrong doing on Mbeki’s part. Are they going to be charge him yet Zuma hasn’t had his day in court? If there is evidence of interference on Thabo Mbeki’s part that does not mean that there was no wrong doing on Zama’s part either. Investigate both I say.

I suggest that Mr. Mpshe read A Man for All Seasons, a play by Robert Bolt. In it, Sir Thomas More is led to the gallows for refusing to bend to King Henry VIII’s wish to divorce his wife because she could not bear him a son. This is a man who believed in himself and his conscience despite the “national interests” concerns of the king not having a son. In our case, the king is Zuma.

More is a strong advocate for the rule of law in the play, even if it leads to his own execution. When his future son-in-law implores him to arrest a man whose perjury will eventually lead to More’s path to the gallows. More tells him that the man has broken no laws, he even tells him that the devil himself deserves his chance before the courts, “And go he should if he were the Devil himself until he broke the law!” More’s son-in-law is shocked at the idea of affording the Devil the benefit of law, but More is unwavering.

Then he goes on to lecture his future son-in-law, “What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? … And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”

So, do we really think we can stand upright in the winds that would blow the laws? The laws are there for our protection, that is why it should be and must be applied to all equally without fear or favour. To claim that we are not going to apply the laws because it is not in the “national interest” to do so is to show fear and favour. As the Devil should have his day in court to prove his innocence before his accusers, so must Jacob Zuma. Not forgetting that the law says innocent until proven guilty. The Devil in this case would be innocent excerpt before the eyes of the accusers who have evidence against him. Zuma too is innocent until proven guilty. But he must be afforded the opportunity to prove his innocence before his accusers.

Lest we forget, Jacob Zuma asked for his day in court, yet he has left no legal avenue unturned in order to avoid this day he has been screaming about. Let’s give it to him. He has threatened to spill the beans if he goes to court. Well, if he has bean to spill, let him spill them. And let those who are trained in the art of catching beans catch them. We want everyone responsible to be brought to book. The law should be applied without fear or favour. Mr Zuma, spill the beans! It is in the interests of the nation for you to do so. By saying nothing, you are still participating in the corruption of our government. It means you are aware of wrongdoing but have been willing to sit silently. You sir should not blackmail us.

How can the NPA accept as evidence, illegally obtained information? The wiretapping of a sitting president without the authorization of a judge? Where did these tapes come from? Who authorized the illegal wiretapping of a sitting president? Is that not treason? Why is there no outcry? If a president can be subjected to such blatant abuse of power, what chance do ordinary people like me have? We should have much fear for ourselves.

So far all we have are rumors, hearsay and we have no proof to judge whether the tapes are authentic or not. It is difficult to take these tapes seriously after the so-called “hoax emails” that made the rounds a while back that were wildly circulated amongst the Friends of Jacob Zuma. Then there was “proof” that Bulelani Ngcuka was an apartheid spy. There were no credible witnesses, no credible evidence and no credible facts to support a claim that was clearly designed to intimidate and pressure the former Director of Public Prosecutions. If there has been a conspiracy, it is the one that has been led against Bulelani Ngcuka. Marc Maharaj, and his friends failed to come up with any evidence proving that he was in fact a spy. Then the ANC misled the nation calling a press conference, assuring us, and fooling us into thinking that they were going to address an issue of national importance. National importance turned to be of national importance for the ANC to announce the defection of a little known Cope figure.

Granted, at times, especially in cases like the Zuma case – it is often difficult to tell the difference between prosecution and persecution. When one is prosecuted it is an easy and often necessary form of defense to shout persecution, painting oneself as a victim. Jacob Zuma is too powerful to persecute.

If there is a conspiracy against Zuma it should be proven in a court of law. The defense always states that conspiracies by nature are difficult to prove. Well, don’t make claims you can’t prove or defend. We don’t have any evidence, all we have are innuendos. If former president Thabo Mbeki is implicated, he must have his day in court, like Zuma. What are these national interests they speak of? Are Jacob Zuma’s and Shabir Schaiks interests now considered that highly? The arrogance of the ANC has taken an unprecedented step, where party and personal interests are dressed up as national interests. They can no longer distinguish what is of national interest, this is a clear indication that the ANC believes that it is South Africa. This country is not and does not belong to a political party. It is no wonder Thabo Mbeki was removed in the way he was.

Our nation cannot afford to have a prosecutions authority that is perceived to cave under political, powerful or from the pressures of the privileged. South Africa is becoming accustomed to the insulation of its elite from the law, yet leaves its ordinary down trodden citizenry, the very people it claims to represent to under representation by the law.

We cannot profess to be a truly democratic society when those who are sworn to protect it do everything in their power to subvert it for their own means.

By caving, Mr Mpshe, you are telling us, the children and future leaders, our brothers and sisters that it is acceptable to be a coward. I do not know what it is like to be in your position Mr Mpshe, nor do I wish to be. But you accepted it and you knew what you were getting yourself into, your country needs you, don’t choose the easy path.

To act as if there is nothing you and anyone else can do, as if this has been preordained, written in the stars, is not just giving up on yourself, you are giving up on your country, sir.

It is not written. It is not preordained that Zuma must walk away from these charges. To quote Cassius, in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…” What happens to Zuma now is not in the stars. It is up to the facts before you Mr. Mpshe. It is your lips that will speak, your mind that will be applied – and it is your hand that will sign the document that decides this country’s fate. Just because you know that you are fighting a losing battle against the ANC does not mean you should cease to throw punches. Throwing in the towel is not an option. We are not a nation of quitters Mr. Mpshe.

The very notion that some individuals have more freedoms and liberties than others is not, should not and must not be accepted. Yet millions of us are willing to sit on our hands and applaud an insult to democracy, civil liberty and the basic tenant that “All are equal before the law.”

We have become victims of our liberation, hostages to our own freedom and slaves to those who think that we owe them for our liberation. I owe my liberty to man and no political party. It belongs to me. None of us owe it to anyone. This slavery to the ANC must come to an end.

We cannot profess to be a truly democratic country when the already, powerful, the already privileged have added privileges before the law. Nor can we boast to have the best constitution in the world when it is not honored. Mr. Mpshe, show us you have balls.

khayav.com
khayav@gmail.com

Zuma: Why people will still vote for the ANC

South Africans remind me of a girl with an abusive boyfriend. He beats (excuse my Xhosa) the shit out of her. Every now and then he tells her “I won’t beat you again, I love you”. They cuddle up and cosy up. Then he beats her up again. The girl knows the relationship is not ideal, it is not the best relationship but keeps making excuses for him and his behaviour. “But he loves me” she keeps telling her friends through broken teeth and ribs.

Then she says: “Anyway before I met him I was down and out and in the dumps. I had nothing. I was a nobody. He made me who I am. He took me in, helped me get a good job and a better education. He introduced me to celebrities, Moet, cigars and all the glitz and glamour. He cares for me even though he gave me a blue eye yesterday and will probably give me another tomorrow. To be fair I owe him.”

She believes in her heart of hearts that she cannot find anyone better. “I am used to him” she tells friends who tell her to get out of the relationship. “I don’t want to get used to someone new all over again.” Then she continues to stay in the abusive relationship where she used to be the significant other and is now the insignificant other. The many trips to the hospital do nothing to dissuade her. Like a perfect gentleman he goes to the hospital to pick her up when she leaves the hospital because he cares. She never lays charges. She is convinced that he still cares because he was sweet enough to pick her up from the hospital.

“He only beats me because he loves me” she tells her friends. Of course by the time she wakes up it’s too late. This is what’s happening to South Africa right now. But we can change this, we only need to want to change the situation bad enough.

How badly do you want to get out of this relationship with the ANC?

My friend the facebook novice

A friend of mine whom I happen to work with finally decided to join the real world – by registering on facebook a couple of months back. A number of us showed him the ropes around this new and wonderfully wonderful world.

One day he budges into my office, completely out of breath and foaming at the mouth. I am so startled that I spill coffee all over myself. Ok, not entirely true because I don’t drink coffee. The point is I would have had I been a coffee drinker. He can’t control his excitement at all. I tell him to take a moment to breath before he says what he has come to tell me. I even go to the water cooler to get him some water. He gulps the water and spills some of it all over himself. I realize that trying to calm him down is an exercise in futility.

He places his hands on my desk and leans over and opens his mouth, there is a hint of a smile. He bursts, “Facebook wants to know what I’m doing right now!” He tells me. Actually he doesn’t tell me, he shouts. He clearly thinks this is directed only at him. I try really hard not to laugh. But I do. Hard. And loud. A few months later I’m still laughing at the thought.

I beat up a cripple once

Does that make me evil? Before you judge me let me explain myself. The punk was asking for it and I gave it to him, reluctantly I might add.

I grew up in the rural areas kids, I’m sure you can tell by my lack of sophistication. Anyway, I had an altercation with a local village boy who was slightly older. I think he had polio because he wore leg braces and his right leg was a whole lot shorter than the other. As a result one of his shoes had a really thick and heavy sole. The weight on his right shoe caused him to drag it around. I never understood why the weaker and shorter leg had all that extra work to do than the perfectly healthy one. It is a metaphor for life I guess, the less fortunate carry all the load. It seemed like it was being punished for not being strong enough.

When he walked, he sort of half dragged his leg. With every step he took, he looked as if he was on the verge of tripping and falling because of the severity of the limp. I have to describe what he was like so you know that this was not a fight that should have happened.

As I have said, I don’t recall what the fight was about but it happened. I remember him walking towards me with clenched fists, limping severely. There was a group of say, 10 other boys my age. I kept saying to him, “Look, I can’t fight you and I don’t want to fight you.” But he kept coming after me. Well, I didn’t want to lose face in front of all these village boys, I knew that I would lose respect and I would be known as the boy who ran away from a cripple. The consequences of that is that every boy in the village would think he could take his chances with me.

So I stood my ground. He threw a fist at me and missed. It was easy to duck because, well, he was slow and his leg caused him to telegraph each swing of his fists. While I ducked I would say, “Dude,” (obviously in Xhosa) “I don’t want to fight you.” I got tired of ducking and diving. I decided to end this thing once and for all. I punched him in the face and he fell. I remember feeling so bad that I helped him up. He gets up and swings again, I swing back and he falls down again. I help him up again he still swings! The audacity! I punch him one more time and once again, he collapses into a heap and this time I don’t help him and I tell him I don’t want to fight him and then I walked away. Does this make me evil?

Breath

World record breath holder

Why I’m a$king for a raise

A few years ago I wrote my then employers the following note asking for a raise (during a recession). I got it.

Before I go into the reasons I would like to thank you for taking time from your busy day to read these lines on this particularly trivial issue. Ok, it’s not as insignificant to me as I am making it seem, I’m sure you can tell by the mere fact that I have decided to write about it. Ha ha ha! Excuse me for laughing out of turn, I am a tad bit nervous. The second thing I would like to do is apologise for the uninspired headline. Please don’t start wondering why I think I should get a raise based on this poor display of what I am paid to do. This is just to convince you that giving me a raise is not such a bad idea.

Anyway, here goes.

1. I am still single. This situation it seems won’t change until I am mobile. Naturally a bulging wallet (which it is not at this point) will help rectify this situation.

2. I am short. Being short and car-less really puts me at an added disadvantage.

3. Having a car will go a long way in helping me achieve one of my goals, that of acquiring a wife. Did I say “acquire”? I’m sorry. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I need to acquire cows for you know what. These cows aren’t cheap these days you know. (For those of you who aren’t South African I need to explain the cow story. We pay cows, now it’s money, to brides parents. This is done in order to establish a relationship with the future in laws. It’s a long story)

4. I have also started to notice a rather disturbing trend. My sneakers are starting to wear out. Obviously this means I need to buy new ones. As you know, everywhere is within walking distance if you have the right shoes, ha ha ha! Oh boy, there goes that nervous laugh again!

5. Have you noticed the price of everything lately? Outrageous! Not only do we have to pay for the food but for the shopping bag as well!

6. I know what you are thinking. You think I am selfish, all I think about is myself. But I am not. I won’t be spending my larger cheque solely on myself. I will make sure that some of the loot goes to the taxman, tipping waitresses (particularly the pretty ones) and car guards (assuming of course this is made possible).

7. No, I will not give any to the street kids. I am not plagued by feelings of white guilt because I’m not! Instead I will give a generous percentage to charity. And there is one particular charitable organisation I have in mind, the National Lottery. They do a great job in distributing money to all sorts of charitable causes like turning ordinary Joe Soaps into millionaires. A truly noble cause.

8. Yes, it’s true, money can’t buy me happiness, but it will buy me a whole lot of shallow satisfaction!

I hope you will find my arguments compelling and persuasive enough to consider them and of course, to discuss the issue with me. Till we talk. Oh, by the way, I art directed this myself.

This message is brought to you by the Society for the Enrichment of Khaya.

Why I endorsed COPE

As an official egomaniac I thought that it was incumbent upon me to make my position clear given the current state of our nation. The desire to write this endorsement is also driven by the false notion that people might take what I have to say seriously. As the title suggests, I fully endorse the Congress of the People (Cope).

I have defended the ANC on numerous occasions on the “internets”, particularly on the video-sharing website known as YouTube. I defended it not because I always thought it was right, but because I felt that was my duty to defend the ruling party whenever I heard people misrepresent it and indirectly, the country. My defense of the ANC and the government got me into some heated exchanges with some fellow South Africans. I have even taken heat from right wing racists. (I’ve always wondered why are there no left wing radical racists? Just a thought). In fact, some racists would use the race card on me! They would call me racist because I chose to defend the African National Congress. I digress.

I have even gone as far as to say that if Jacob Zuma does become the president of the Republic it wouldn’t be the end of the world because the world’s leading ratings agencies like Moody’s and others said that there would be no major policy shifts if Zuma takes over. I said these things after Polokwane. As uncertain as I was of a Zuma presidency at the time, I thought it prudent to give the man and the new leadership a chance after his camp was elected into office.

I went on to quote Warren Buffet who once said, “You should invest in a business that even a fool can run, because someday a fool will.” I made the example that South Africa has a strong constitution and an independent judiciary. So even if a fool runs the country it will be fine because of the structures in place. I was also fully aware of the fact that some people would deliberately twist my words and imply that I called Jacob Zuma a fool.

I have even gone as far as to say that white people needed to join the ANC and stop moaning so that they can change it if they don’t like it. If you complain from the sidelines, nothing will change I said. I was taken to task for making these suggestions. But these suggestions stimulated the kind of debate I had hoped they would on YouTube.

I said all those things because I believed them at time. Indeed the ANC will change to what it was meant to be, perhaps even better than what it was meant to be, but it won’t happen next year or tomorrow. The ANC won’t just change. When it finally decides to change it will be too late. It will be because it will be forced to. The most dynamic organisations are the ones that change before they have to.

I joined the Youth League because I believed that it was better to be involved than to complain about Fikile Mbalula. If I was part of the YL then I could make my voice heard and ensure that the next Youth League president was of a better quality than him. It was my strong belief that being part of the ANC was the only way one could have a voice and change it from the direction I believed it was headed. Unfortunately this did not happen.

I will give an account of an ANCYL meeting I attended where the chairperson of my then branch opened up a discussion on some outlandish statement that Julius Malema had made. He asked if anyone had anything to say. As I was a new member I thought I’d wait until someone said something before I expressed my views. No hand went up for about a minute. “If no one has something to say I have something to say.” I said. I suggested that my branch write a letter to him and let it be known that we distance ourselves from what he had said, we thought it was unbecoming of a disciplined member of the organization. After I spoke all hands went up without hesitation. They did not agree with me because our branch would lose benefits, it would be targeted as an undesirable branch that goes against the president. What I found puzzling was that no one contradicted the merits of my case against Julius Malema, they were worried about the benefits the branch and the members stood to lose.

Only one other person stood up to agree with me. Then I stated that one of the key tenants of our branch was moral regeneration. How moral were we being if we agreed that Julius Malema was wrong but we are too worried about losing benefits? What is more moral I asked, the fear of losing benefits or standing for what we claim to believe in on paper? What is moral about giving in to fear I asked. I lost the battle.

Needless to say, this incident and others convinced me that people were afraid of disagreeing with the higher ups for fear of retribution. I could no longer be part of a political party that had sowed such fear amongst its own.

As you can imagine, it was with great pain and reluctance that I decided to leave.

The reason I endorse Cope is because of a Martin Luther King quote Barack Obama often used during his campaign. He would say, “I am running because of what Dr King referred to as ‘the fierce urgency of now.’” Obama never quoted the whole passage; he always quoted those five words, “the fierce urgency of now.”

Allow me to quote Dr King’s entire passage: “We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood-it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, “Too late.” There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect.”

I don’t want my generation to be in that invisible book that says we were not vigilant and that we were neglectful when we saw that we were headed towards a cliff.

As Dr King so eloquently put it, “There is such a thing as being too late.” Zimbabwe is a case in point. When the people of Zimbabwe decided to stand up, it was too late.

I believe that we cannot wait for another five years for the ANC to change. The world is in a global financial crisis. We cannot afford to wait when the poor get poorer. We cannot afford to wait another five years for justice to be served differently depending on one’s political standing. We cannot afford to wait another five years for the ruling party to remove the president from office at a whim. We cannot afford to have the entire machinery of the ruling party dedicated to making sure that an individual never gets his day in court. We cannot afford to wait when our judges are being called counter revolutionaries. We cannot afford to be too late.

Lest we forget that the future president of this country lacks judgment. He knowingly had sex with an HIV positive woman – without a condom. I cannot entrust the future of my country to someone who makes such reckless decisions, nor to men and women who decided that he should be the one to head the ANC. Make no mistake about it, I still think that he is a humble, likeable guy, but that is not enough for my vote. I have to be responsible with my mark on Wednesday.

Now, some of us have decided to vote for the ruling party because we know it will win. It’s human nature. No one wants to feel like a loser. Some are just voting for bragging rights so that, come Wednesday or Thursday, they can say they won. Again, it’s human nature, we can’t blame them for that. People by nature are followers we have a herd mentality. We want to feel like we are part of the winning team. But I would rather lose with a clear conscience than win with a guilty one.

I want to be able to say to my children that when the time came for me to stand up, I did. And not only did I stand, I walked and ran. Because standing is not enough; acting is what counts.

I support Cope’s call of having a president elected by the people. Right now, the people are under the impression that they elect a president when in fact it is parliament that does.

I endorse Cope because it will be accountable to the people. The leadership will not tell the people what to do; it is the people that will tell the leadership what to do. The people lead the movement.

I support Cope because of its instance that there should be a separation between party and state. We have seen that the ruling party sees itself as the state by how it has pressured the NPA into dropping charges against the president of the ruling party. This is the main reason that Cope has a separate presidential candidate and party president. The party president will go around the country making sure that those Cope leaders who are in parliament are actually delivering what they were sent there to do. It’ not just about being in touch with people when their vote is needed.

I support Cope because it believes that the highest of the high and the lowest of the low should get equal treatment before the law.

I support Cope because it believes in affirmative action without reservation. Cope wants to make sure that the policies written on paper are implemented more effectively. It believes that blacks should not just be filtered into junior positions, but should be mentored and equipped with skills so that they can fill senior management positions faster. It calls for the end of employing unqualified people for positions when there are many blacks who have the necessary skills for those jobs and to quote my friend Anele Mdoda, “This eliminates ‘oh you were hired, just because you black’ attitude that many face on daily basis when they actually are competent and excel at their jobs.”

I support Cope because it believes that a party that is truly interested in serving the people will not threaten them by saying that they will lose grants if they don’t vote for it.

I support Cope because it will be South Africa’s first truly diverse political party, where all members of our country will be represented in their numbers. The enthusiasm for Cope spans racial, religious and class lines.

One of the things that impressed me the most about Cope was when one of its youth leaders said something off colour about the president of the ruling party. An apology was issued. There were no excuses, no attempt to spin what had been said, there was no going to a laager to defend the indefensible. Cope did not wait for other political parties to speak out before an apology was issued. We cannot say the same thing of the ruling party. We waited for months for an apology for some of the statements that were made by its youth leader. Even the apology was a non-apology; they went on to blame the media. One of the things I’ve learnt is never ruin an apology with an excuse.

Cope is not perfect. No political party is. It would be a mistake to believe that there is. Even churches cannot claim that. But what I hope Cope will do, is at least to try to make this country move forward, look ahead and not backwards. I know that it will give the people of this nation hope that there are better days ahead for us as a nation.

These are just some of the reasons I endorse Cope.

http://twitter.com/khayadlanga

My traumatic voting experience

I walk into the voting station and a surge of emotion overcomes me, maybe it’s adrenaline or my mind is beginning to realize what I’m about to do, I don’t know, I’m not a shrink.

I tell the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) official who had my Identity Document (ID) to handle it with care because it’s in pieces, literally. I even tried to staple the pages together at some point because I wanted to prevent the pages from falling off, but some of the staples have fallen off. The black and white photo in the green ID does not look anything like the owner. In the photo I like a criminal, a wanted man, in fact it looks like a mug shot. Before I even present it to the IEC official I tell her that I promise the man inside there that doesn’t look like me, is in fact me. She opens the ID, looks at me and does not believe that it’s me. Then she says she can tell by the eyes, she laughs and shows the unfortunate ID photo to another official, who laughs at the state of the ID then at me. I’m unperturbed, I experience this mockery every time I go to a bank.

In fact I experienced it outside while in the queue when my so called friends laughed (yes, you Xolisa, Anele, Fix, Simone and Sizwe) their rear ends off, first at the state of my ID which has seen many a washing machine trips, then at my photo. They mocked me by playing cards with its pages. Fix even had the audacity to impersonate the host of an ancient TV program, “Ngomgqibelo Kamukibelo”. She pretended that the pages were money. She counted as she handed me the pages of my ID one by one by shouting, and all of them in unison, “One hundred! Two hundred! Three Hundred!” Not funny.

Inside the voting stations I can feel anxiety go through me and I try to distract myself by talking to the bored and tired elections officials. They direct me to the lady that’s going to put ink on my thumb to prove that I had in fact voted. I notice that she looks tired and irritable, I mention this to her and she tells me she’d been there since 6 in the morning. As she paints my thumb with the purple ink I tell her that I am disappointed with her job because, “I thought you were going to write, ‘I love Khaya.’” She laughs and retorts by saying “Maybe next time.” At least I leave her smiling. My heart is pounding and I feel a little shaky.

I move on to the next table where I am given my ballot paper. I take it and I make some stupid comment, as I am prone to do. The guy laughs, then I proclaim my nervousness and the official tells me to go do my duty for my country, I oblige. I arrive at the booth and unfold my ballot and see the million and one party name on the ballot paper and realize that a number of trees no longer exist so we could vote.

After unfolding my ballot, just before I make my cross, I put my hands on my face for a couple of seconds and say a little prayer, my heart is beating from what I can imagine is adrenaline.  I look down and I see the ANC, DA and Cope. Those are the only parties I see for some reason. I take a deep breath. I can’t believe I’m about to vote for anyone but the ANC. I reach out for the pen inside the booth and lift it towards me. I put my hands on my face again and ask God to help me be guided by reason and not emotion. After all I will not be voting for the party of Nelson Mandela, Albert Luthuli, Walter Sisulu, Oliver Tambo and many other heroes. I did not anticipate the profound trauma I would feel.

The moments before putting the cross are traumatic. Eventually I make my mark next to Cope. It feels good but I am emotioned out. Earlier, a cousin of mine had told us that voting felt very emotional for him, especially realizing that he was not voting for the ANC. I just thought that he was being a girl. I took no heed to what he experienced.

I can imagine that some people who may have intended to put their cross next to Cope must have been so overwhelmed with emotion that they just marked by the green, gold and black flag.

Finally I will myself out of the voting booth after what seems like unaphakade (an eternity).  I walk to the ballot box. I try to get over my emotional state by joking with the elections official who has been given the mundane but crucial task of making sure that we insert our ballots in the cardboard ballot box. As I place my ballot in the box stuffed with ballot papers, I smile as though posing for a camera. I pose for a second anticipating a camera flash. I ask the election official, “Dude, where are the cameras and the news folk?” He laughs and tells me that maybe they didn’t know I was going to cast my vote over there.

In the car, my friends ask me if I was ok because I was very quite. I tell them I am. I am on my phone updating my twitter (follow me on http://twitter.com/khayadlanga). That was not the reason for my silence though, I was just coming to terms with what had happened in the voting booth. A lot was going through me. It was not easy not voting for something I had loved for so long. It felt like a break up. But voting for Cope felt right and amazing. Voting for this 125-day-old baby. She is a child that I have to look after now, take care of and make sure I never have to abandon her, or she me.

Funny t shirt. From Christ, Gandhi, Mandela to Zuma.

I was out clubbing when I saw some guys wearing this.

My friend, the bad storyteller.

I have a friend, let’s call him friend A. Yes, I know that comes to you as a surprise but I do have a friend. The fact that I have to pay him a fee to rent his friendship is besides the point, the point is I am like you. I have someone I call buddy.

Unfortunately there is one thing that troubles me about him. He is a horribly atrocious storyteller. I thought I was bad, but man, A sucks! If there were an Olympics for worst storyteller in the world he would win gold. No contest. Allow me to tell you one of his stories – word for word.

Once upon a time, my good friend A and another friend (who shall remain friend B for the purposes of this story) were chatting about random stuff. Anyway, to cut a long narrative short, A interrupts us and says, “Guys, did you watch the news last night?”
“No,” we say.
“Well, there is this rich guy in France.” Pause. “He’s in trouble.”
Silence.
More silence.
Even more silence.

I suddenly come to the realisation that that’s all there is to the story. “There is this rich guy in France. He is in trouble.” That’s it. No more.

“Is that it?!” I ask with incredulous irritations. He nods.

One thing I gotta give him though is that he sure tells a memorable pointless story. After all these years, six years to be precise, I still remember it. “There is this rich guy in France.” Pause. “He is in trouble.”

I promise, it’s his real name

I went to a restaurant some time last year. I saw one of the waiter’s name tags and I asked to take a pic of his name because I was afraid no one would believe me. So there.

Women want men to lie to them

I wrote this a while back for True Love Babe when they were still around. It was going to be a regular column (until they went defunct) based on a fictitious relationship between two fictitious characters I named Anonymous Boyfriend and Anonymous Girlfriend. All the columns would be written from the perspective of Anonymous Boyfriend

I feel it is my fundamental duty as a man to lie. Before you bite my head off allow me to explain myself.

I was sitting in front of my TV wishing I had a bigger one (bigger TV that is) with Anonymous Girlfriend a few days ago. She was leaning against my chest when she asked me a peculiar question. “Do you find other women attractive?” When I first heard the question I wasn’t sure whether it was an innocent question or not. And so I avoided answering it by saying, “Sure I find Beyonce attractive.” I knew that answer would not get me in trouble because she’d laugh. I was wrong. She didn’t laugh. Instead she leaned away from me and looked into my eyes and said, “You know what I mean.”

As soon as those words left her lips my mind went to the races. I wondered about many things. Was this a trap? If I say yes I find other women attractive will I be signing my own death warrant? And if I say no I don’t find other women attractive surely she will know that I am lying, mainly because Anonymous Girlfriend always knows when I am being economical with the truth. What to do, what do to do? I could only think of one man who could extricate himself from this position without getting into any sort of trouble. That man would be King Solomon. Unfortunately he is no longer with us, which meant that I could not consult him for desperately needed advice. It was at that point that I prayed and asked for guidance and wisdom from above in order to navigate this treacherous terrain.

“Lord,” I prayed, “won’t you grant me the wisdom to lie to Anonymous Girlfriend. Won’t you give me the strength to tell her that I don’t find other women attractive? I know that I shouldn’t be asking you to help me lie because well, you say in your book lying is a bad thing. Please, won’t you do me this favour just this one time? Won’t you help me by blinding her to my lie?” All this happened in my mind in about half a second. Perhaps she noticed my hesitation because she said, “Be honest. You don’t have to lie, being attracted to other people is perfectly normal.” I couldn’t believe my ears upon hearing that. I was free to tell truth. “Yes, I find other women attractive.” There was a brief silence. I became uncomfortable.

Then she asked me another question about her best friend, “Do you find Anonymous Best Friend attractive?”

Perhaps I should go into a bit more detail about Anonymous Girlfriend’s best friend. She is hot. Really, really hot. Did I say hot? I think I did. Since I had been given the freedom to tell the truth I felt comfortable. Now, don’t get me wrong, Anonymous Girlfriend is one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen. She is gorgeous. Since I had been given carte blanche I was honest. “Oh yes, I think she’s really hot.” I said trying to sound nonchalant but I think the words came out of my mouth more enthusiastically than I intended. To this day I have no idea what happened next because Anonymous Girlfriend let go off my hand, grabbed her bag, her car keys, opened the door, walked out. All I was left with was the sound of the door banging behind her. What the hell just happened I asked my puzzled self. I walked after her and told that she said to tell the truth. Silence.
“But you said it’s normal for people to find others attractive.” Silence.
She got into her car and drove off. She might have even tried to run me over. But I exaggerate. The point I’m making here is that she was upset.

As she drove off, it was at that point that I had a revelation from the depths of my spirit, “I should have lied. I should have said she is an ugly fat pig.” I thought to myself. Even if she had been able to tell that I lied perhaps that would have been the best thing for me to do. What Anonymous girlfriend failed to hear in her moment of irrationally (of which there are plenty) is that I never said that Anonymous Best Friend was more attractive than her. I just said that she was pretty.

I have come to the following conclusion then. Even when women say that they want us to tell them the truth about certain things, they don’t really want it. They hope we tell a lie. Even if they know. I have heard many dudes tell the same story I just told. They are implored to tell the truth only to be punished for saying, “Yes honey, I think those jeans do make you look fat” even though the girl in question had requested honesty. The common reply is, “So you’re calling me fat?” There is no winning.

If there are any men reading this right now I would like you to join with me and bow your head in prayer. Let us pray. “Give us strength and foresight; O Lord to know when we are asked tricked questions that might get us into unnecessary trouble. You know Lord we can’t lie on our own. So we ask that you grant us the skill of lying when the need arises. And finally Lord, I pray for myself now. Lord, in case Anonymous Girlfriend sees this won’t you make her believe me when I say someone else wrote this? Amen.”

This toilet sign seems cruel, but funny

I saw this very funny toilet sign at Design Quaters, Fourways a few months back. As I am prone to do, I took a pic. Looks like they are laughing at the disabled guy. Not nice guys. Why are you laughing the guy in a wheelchair? lol

Mandela and Hitler assume an uncanny identical pose

I was at a friend’s house when I saw a book with Hitler on the cover. The first thing that struck me was how similar his pose was to Mandela’s when he went to visit is old cell on Robbin Island. I decided to combine the pictures in order to contrast what each one of them represents. Both men evoke strong emotions.

I know that some people may find it offensive that I’d put the two together in the same picture. The message I’m trying to bring here is that you can both be visionaries, but it all depends on whether that vision is to build bridges or to destroy them. We all know who wins.

My boss blows up my computer with a firecracker

There used to be YOU in YouTube

YouTube used to be a community where people from across the world made videos and communicated. But big money came in and killed the community. It’s a bit a big chain store killing the small local shops that used to be in a community. I understand the need for YouTube to make money, but should it be at the expense of a community?

Polite friends

We were friends
Maybe not
Maybe more
Maybe less
Maybe between friendship and what would never be

Polite friends
With Polite feelings
And Polite words

Feelings lingered
Dangled
Unsaid
Unspoken
Obvious secrets

Polite friends
With Polite feelings
And Polite words

We smiled
Some secret
Invisible kisses
Never shared
But wished for

Polite friends
With Polite feelings
And Polite words

On Saturdays we saw movies
But really saw each other
We held hands
That were never held

Polite friends
With Polite feelings
And Polite words

“I adore you” we would say
Three polite words
Burying three bolder words
That would never be said

Polite friends
With Polite feelings
And Polite words

You sat on my desk
You wore my shades
You sent me poetry
You wrote me a poem

“I wear you like an etching in my blood
For you will always be with me”

Polite friends
With Polite feelings
And Polite words

I’ve become a born-again South African.

I have finally decided to break my self-imposed silence on our recent elections.

The first thing I would like to do is congratulate our new president, Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma. Whatever one thinks of the man, you have to admire how he managed to clear every single obstacle in his way. I know that many people have mixed feelings about him. Whatever you feel for the man, it is imperative we support him because if we don’t we won’t be able to solve the unemployment problem.

It is for this reason that I believe we need to look forward to his success as president. If he fails, we fail. If he is a disaster, we become one. If he succeeds, you succeed. Wishing him to fail will be counter-productive to the goals we have as a country. We have to put the country above whatever personal feelings we may have towards him. Our support does not mean we blindly follow every decision he makes.

As some of you may or may not know, and in the interests of full disclosure, I would like to point out that I campaigned for and voted for Cope.

It is a mistake for Cope supporters to wish that the president or his government fail. Our success as a party should not be built on the failures of the ANC but rather on our ability to communicate a superior message and an improved articulation of our positions. To wish that the government fails so that we can succeed is self-defeating. It puts party before country. We cannot afford that. When Barack Obama took over, one of America’s most famous conservative radio talk-show hosts, Rush Limbaugh, said he wanted Obama to fail. Of course, if Obama does fail Limbaugh will not suffer because he is a multi-millionaire but those people who lose their homes will feel the failure.

During these past few months I have become a born-again South African. We live in a truly beautiful, surprising, resilient country. My faith in this country was renewed by the debates I saw, the interest young people showed in politics for the first time. We live in a new South Africa again. It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But it is being perfected every day by those who know they have a responsibility to the country, by those who know their success depends on the political success of the country.

There is something remarkable about how the ANC achieved its overwhelming victory. And I am not talking about the huge percentage it got. I’m talking about the small percentage it did not.

Think about it. They needed less than 1% to achieve a two-thirds majority. So, what is so remarkable about that you may ask? They could have cheated so easily just to get that, yet they chose not to. That is evidence that we live in a true democracy. This small, yet great, temptation was resisted. This achievement must be commended. We just have to be grateful our votes weren’t counted by M-Net. On the flipside one can also say why congratulate them on doing the right thing? As Chris Rock once said: “Some men like to brag about never having been to jail. Well, you’re not supposed to go to jail!”

So what’s next? We cannot talk about what’s next before we have talked about what has been. The future is always connected to the past. We should not talk about the future while we forget about the past. It is often said, “forget the past”. “No,” I say. To remember the past is to pay tribute to the future. The past may shape us but we decide who we become. Maybe the real question is what kind of a people are we deciding to become? We are either shackled by the past or freed from it. We are either shaped by it or we use it to shape the future. The choice ladies and gentlemen is ours. First as individuals, then as a people. The destiny of this country is not written for us. We chose the kind of future we want. And the people chose a Zuma future.

As a people we need to realise that we come from different pasts but what we all want is the same future — a better one. I would like to drive through Khayelitsha without being assaulted by shacks all dressed up in poverty and nowhere to go. Many of the residents there see a bleak future for themselves, a vicious, poverty-stricken future, with no way to escape, except through crime, drugs and violence. The social consequences of this endemic poverty are too depressing to enumerate. We don’t want that to happen. We want to see all South Africans employed. And we as South Africans can have solutions to these problems, they are not going to take a generation to solve, but we can’t just close our eyes and pretend there is no problem.

If there is one man living in a shack, then I am not yet free. If there is a farm worker who still endures being called a “kaffir” by his bass on a daily basis then I am not yet free. If there is a white farmer killed simply because he is white then I am not yet free. We are not free. If I bribe a traffic officer for my freedom, then I am not free. All of us are still striving towards freedom.

We have to hold our government accountable. We must question them without fear or favour. We need a youthful, respectful academic militancy. We need to cultivate the celebration of intellectualism. There has been a rise of anti-intellectualism in our political discourse. Anti-intellectualism is something new, we cannot accept it and to abandon it is to insult the Sol Plaatjies, Oliver Tambos and Steve Bikos who celebrated intellect.

For us to turn this into an extraordinary country will take a few ordinary people to take ordinary steps. If we all do what we are supposed to do, what we must do, we can turn this into an extraordinary country. Small things like not jumping a red robot. Refusing to bribe a traffic officer, refusing to bribe that home affairs official, demanding good, not great, just good service at the restaurant. Doing our best at work. Starting a business instead of being employed. All these small ordinary actions will turn us into an extraordinary country. If we have high ethical standards for ourselves, then we have every right to have high expectations of our leaders. But as long as we continue to cut corners, lie, cheat and bribe, we deserve the leaders we get.

So, what is next? The truth is we don’t truly know what is next. None of us are prophets. The important thing is we all know what needs to be done. But what’s even more important is doing what needs to be done. What young people need to do is turn us into a generation that future South Africans will talk about, we should be a tribute to the 1976 generation that fought despite insurmountable odds. The odds we face today are nothing like the ones they did. Maybe we are not desperate enough to see a great South Africa. Maybe we are too comfortable to change anything. Maybe we are not restless enough. Natives of South Africa, be restless, the country needs you to be.

Old South African flag flag must be banned

As I celebrated the emphatic victory of the Blue Bulls over the Chiefs on Saturday, a bad taste was left in my mouth when I saw an old South African flag waving in stadium. That flag is right up there with the use of the word Kaffir as far as I’m concerned. If you wave that flag in front of me that’s what you are calling me. Having said that, I also know that not everyone who was there was glad that happened.

Did I enjoy the victory still? Yes. Did I celebrate? Yes. Was I proud of a South African team? Yes. But that does not take away from the fact that the flag dampened the mood over the occasion. In one second, it took us to the past. It has no future in the new South Africa.

The only place that flag must be in is a museum. I know that it still flies over the Castle of Good Hope in Cape Town, that is understandable, it is history. We cannot pretend that flag never existed, but we cannot hide the waving of the flag behind Freedom of Expression. Like any freedom we enjoy, Freedom of Expression has limits. A freedom with no limits leads to anarchy.

Chapter 2, section 16 on our Bill of Rights says the following about the Freedom of Expression:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes ­
1. freedom of the press and other media;
2. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
3. freedom of artistic creativity; and
4. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to ­
1. propaganda for war;
2. incitement of imminent violence; or
3. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

That flag will incite violence in the right place and at the right time. It also advocates hatred based on race and ethnicity. Banning that flag does not only protect those who are subjected to what it advocates, but those who advocate the hate it symbolizes too. Imagine what would happen to that guy if he were to wave that flag in a Kaiser Chiefs VS Orlando Pirates match. I am all for Freedom of Expression, but it can’t go unchecked. It must have limits.

I believed then just as I do now that the people who were around the flag carrier should have removed it from whoever was waving it by force. Remaining silent and doing nothing about the flag might be viewed as an endorsement of what it represents even if those who were around the flag carrier were repulsed by the man’s actions. In the words of Martin Luther King Junior, “In order for evil to triumph, good people do nothing.” We all know what it stands for. It stands for the subhumanising of people of colour, racism, oppression, torture and everything that was wrong and immoral about the previous regime.

We could make the mistake of reacting out of emotion and claim that all white rugby supporters are racist and therefore supported the flag waver. The truth is we know better than that.

If the Germans can ban the waving of the Nazi flag I don’t understand why we cannot do the same.

President Obama kills fly (Obama is a Ninja)

If you thought he couldn’t hurt a fly, you have anther think coming.

Al Sharpton’s Speech at Michael Jackson Memorial

Paris Jackson cries at Michael Jackson memorial

We had him, Dr Maya Angelou’s poem for Michael Jackson

Beloveds, now we know that we know nothing

Now that our bright and shining star can slip away from our fingertips like a puff of summer wind

Without notice, our dear love can escape our doting embrace

Sing our songs among the stars and and walk our dances across the face of the moon

In the instant we learn that Michael is gone we know nothing

No clocks can tell our time and no oceans can rush our tides

With the abrupt absence of our treasure

Though we our many, each of us is achingly alone

Piercingly alone

Only when we confess our confusion can we remember that he was a gift to us and we did have him

He came to us from the Creator, trailing creativity in abundance

Despite the anguish of life he was sheathed in mother love and family love and survived and did not more than that

He thrived with passion and compassion, humor and style

We had him

Whether we knew who he was or did not know, he was our’s and we were his

We had him

Beautiful, delighting our eyes

He raked his hat slant over his brow and took a pose on his toes for all of us and we laughed and stomped our feet for him

We were enchanted with his passion because he held nothing

He gave us all he had been given

Today in Tokyo, beneath the Eiffel Tower, in Ghana’s Blackstar Square, in Johannesburg, in Pittsburgh, in Birmingham, Alabama and Birmingham England, we are missing Michael Jackson

But we do know that we had him

And we are the world.

Eternal Moonwalk

This has to be the best tribute to Michael Jackson at them moment. Loving it. All you have to do is post a video of yourself mooning walking  to www.eternalmoonwal.com and it will be joined to other vids.

If you can’t have a Louis Vuitton branded Bag, have Louis Vuitton branded house

We live in a country. As one normaly does. But it is an interesting country. Not every country is. This person decided that if they can’t have a Louis Vuitton bag, then they will live in a Louis Vuitton branded house instead.  This is how an inaccessible brand becomes accessible. A Louis Vuitton bag probably costs more than this house. I love this.

The Terrible Love Triangle: Men, Women and Money*

Don’t blame her if she’s only interested in your money – not if you’re the one defining yourself by your possessions

Hey you, sitting in front of a computer. Yes, you. How did I know you were reading this on a computer? I’m psychic. Anyhow, moving right along to more important issues, like women. And money. More specifically, women, men and money. It’s a terrible triangle. You know how it is – a man will chase after money in order to chase women. Then he gets women who love his money, but just tolerate him. He can’t be jealous of his money, because money is an innate object that evokes all sorts of reactions from people. This reminds me of an ad that Samuel L. Jackson did for a bank – in it he talks about money, and asks: “Is money evil? If money was a chicken, would the chicken be evil?” Money is not evil – it is what we use it for that can be evil.

One of the great tragedies of life is that our first instinct is to refuse to listen to our instinct – instead we listen to our fragile and often limp egos (otherwise also known as the male genitalia). Any man who thinks with his you-know-what deserves whatever comes his way. Don’t get me wrong, there are times when it is appropriate to think with it, but 98% of the time men use it to think, it’s not.

Most of the time we deserve the kind of women we end up with. The messages we send out gets us who we end up with. Many guys will meet a beautiful girl in a club, wearing the shortest skirt, and think she must be easy. Meanwhile, she’s on the look out for a dude who will splash out the most money on her for the night.

If you think that by flashing your wallet you will get a great woman, the one you really need, then you have a broken wallet and heart coming. You will label all women as selfish, greedy female dogs (my mother taught me not to cuss). We get the women we deserve. Show her your brain, not your wallet. Your heart, not your credit card. If she can’t accept your brain, then she doesn’t deserve your wallet. That’s the way it should be. If you show her the wallet, then she is in love with it not you. If you get treated like an ATM machine, it’s not her fault, it’s yours for allowing your junior member below the belt to do all your thinking for you.

Once at a club that I shall not name, I met a gentleman by the bar – I will call him BEE Guy, because that’s what he looked like. BEE Guy was relatively young and well put together. He started a conversation with me, and told me about the obvious: all the beautiful women who were at the club. I agreed with him, and just nodded every now and then, because I couldn’t hear what he was saying over the loud music. At some point he lent closer and said: “You know, picking them up would be so much easier if we were allowed to drive in here in our cars.” I was shocked by what I heard. Obviously BEE Guy couldn’t count on his charms or charisma. All he could rely on was his money. What defined him was his stuff. Money. Car. And more stuff.

Allow me to quote the obscenely wealthy old white guy George Soros – he is someone who can speak on the subject of money and the importance we place upon it with far greater authority than I can. I quote: “Unsure of what they stand for, people increasingly rely on money as the criterion of value. What is more expensive is considered better … People deserve respect and admiration because they are rich. What used to be a medium of exchange has usurped the place of fundamental values, reversing the relationship postulated by economic theory. What used to be professions have turned into businesses. The cult of success has replaced a belief in principles. Society has lost its anchor.”

We define character by how much we have and the kind of cars we drive, in order to get a certain kind of woman, to impress people you don’t even like! What’s the point? If you lured a women with your wallet instead of your personality, if she likes your stuff more than she likes you, she not a … err … female dog, she’s doing what you taught her to do. A real man will be confident in who he is, not what he has. If he happens to have money, power and everything else, that’s a bonus.

*originally appeared on http://www.destinyman.com/blogs/khaya6239/archive/2009/07/07/the-terrible-love-triangle-men-women-and-money.aspx

SABC News was too scared to broadcast my response

Many years ago when I lived in Cape Town I dabbled as a comedian. Don’t laugh, I’m not trying to be funny. I’m serious. To cut a long narrative short, Comedian Desmond Dube had a show on SABC 2. I forget what it was called, but I know that it was very popular. He created some controversy this one time (not at band camp) when he said in one of his sketches, “Shangaans are very ugly. In fact they’re so ugly it’s better to be a baboon than to be Shangaan.” I’m sure it was taken out of context too, but that is the phrase that was paraded around.

A storm broke out when a parliamentarian was so incensed that she raised the issue in parliament. Her angry speech made it on to the news. For reasons beyond my comprehension I got a call from SABC news, they wanted my opinion on the matter they said. I told them there were better comedians than me to comment on the matter. “Yes we tried them, but they’re not available,” came the reply from the line. Then I said, “Sure, come over.”

They went to my office and I was made to pretend I was tying something on my laptop, you know that shot they like. There’s another shot they like, they’ll ask you to walk towards your office while they shoot.

Two days later than they said they’d arrive, they finally arrived with their cameras (mind you, it was only my third day in my new job). The producer asked, “So what do you make of what Desmond Dube said the other day? And what do you make of the parliamentarian’s reaction?” I said, “Well, I know Desmond. He certainly didn’t mean what he said. There is no doubt in my mind about that. I mean how could he mean it? Just take a look at Desmond. He could be Shangaan.” The SABC was too chicken to broadcast that part of the interview.

Settling for imperfection*

The problem with imperfect people looking for perfect partners is that there is no such thing as a perfect person – only one that is perfect for you

Human nature is a funny thing. Not funny as in slap my thigh, ha ha ha – the kind of funny that causes you to shake your head in a mild sense of bemusement and disbelief. I’m sure you agree with me, because you too are an actor in this play called life. Some of us are involved in anyone of a certain class of romantic movies. Our relationships resemble a romantic comedy, a tragic romance or a dramatic comedy – the list is endless, but you get my drift.

Everyone wants an ideal relationship, but hardly anyone knows how to act when they get one. That is the conundrum of the human condition. We know what we want, but when we get it, we don’t want it. No one has taught us how to want what we wish for.  When God finally answers our passionate prayers, suddenly, we tell him it’s not what we were really asking for.

When you get what you want, you best want it when you get it. This is as true for love as it is for life. Want what you have.

Of course, wanting the ideal woman does not mean you should have unreasonable expectations. The ideal woman can never be ideal. You must know that she will not have everything you want. To get the perfect woman, you too must be a perfect man. And you know just as well as I do that you are far from it. In fact, some men aren’t even trying to be perfect, even though they are looking for Miss Perfect. Not that there is anything unusual about it – but it should be. People generally have higher standards for others than they do for themselves. The world would be in a much better shape if it were the other way round.

To quote from a song by the greatest entertainer to have graced this planet (and the moon), Michael Jackson: “I’m starting with the man in the mirror. I’m asking him to change his ways. And no message could’ve been any clearer. If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and then make a change.”

The great wordsmith William Shakespeare put it in timeless eloquence when he put the following words in Cassius’s lips, in his play Julius Caesar: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” Can you imagine how much trouble we could save ourselves if we looked at every single problem with a person through that prism? Of course, there are people out there who are just wrong – take Bruno for example.

I digress.

Since this person is everything you want, we have to agree that there is nothing wrong with them. Then, if we find reason to fault them, we should question ourselves. What is wrong with me? What do I need to fix in me? “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

Maybe we don’t really want the perfect person. Think about the Michael Jackson lyrics. The mirror. What do we know about a mirror? A mirror is perfect. It reflects everything. Nothing is hidden. It shows everything for what it is. Perhaps that is the problem with getting what we want. The perfection. If you are not perfect, the mirror will tell you. Naturally some people will take the reflection in accordance to their level of maturity or insecurities. Those insecurities cause us to find wrong where there is none. What do I mean by this? Allow me: I have had conversations with women who have what they have always dreamed of in a man. “He is everything I want,” they say, and then the pregnant pause. We all know what the pause will give birth to – a “But.” How can there be a “but” if he is what you want? Perhaps it is reasonable to assume that the reason people say “but” is because they are not ready to get what they want. What they want might be too mature for them. Or they are not ready to learn about themselves, or to improve who they are. They are just satisfied with no personal internal progress. The greatest expression of love we can show is to be honest with ourselves.

These people will usually find fault in the other people, but never themselves. “We never fight. He calls me everyday. He gets me flowers. The lovemaking is great. He is honest. He makes me laugh.” The truth is, they are just not ready for what they want. Maybe it is the realisation that they might not deserve the person they are with, thus they find reasons to fault them for being everything they want. But who is to say who deserves who?

It reminds me of an episode of Californication where a young girl says to her mother about her dad: “Mom, love him for who he is, not for who he could be.” If your partner loves you with all your flaws, then you should be happy that you are loved for who you are, not who you could be.

We should not seek perfect people, because they don’t exist. If they do, we will find fault in them anyway. Let’s just find other imperfect people to be perfect with. If they accept you for who you are, even with your greater faults, then I suppose that makes them perfect. And if you accept them with all their faults, then I suppose that makes you perfect too.

*first appeared on destiny

How ‘cowardice’ helped Bolt become the fastest man in the world

We have to admit that Bolt is fast. I promise not to be lead into the temptation of cheap puns regarding his name, even expensive ones for that matter. He broke the world record. Again. His own. I couldn’t help wondering. I lie. I didn’t wonder because I am too lazy to, I am sure my laziness is the explanation for the noticeable midsection I seem to be developing lately. When examined closely one would think I was pregnant. Indeed the stomach is pregnant, with laziness.

How is it possible for a human being to be as fast as that man? 9.58? My golly! That is fast! Do you think he would sink if he attempted to run on water? I don’t think so. I suspect that he can’t fight to save his life. If you can’t fight them or beat them, run so fast that they can’t catch. I cannot see how else his career in running would have begun. This is the only way his speed makes any sense to me. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

I wish I could have been able to run as fast as a kid, instead I was forced to fend for myself and beat up numerous boys in the process (let’s pretend I was a hero here, this is good for my chance with the ladies) including a young fellow that was crippled by polio. Don’t judge me. That’s a story for another day.

While we’re still at it, Ferrari is in need of some serious help. Maybe now that Schumacher won’t be racing because of his neck, Ferrari should hire Bolt to run in his place. A friend of mine on twitter @anele twittered this gem before the race: “Okay so Bolt is about to run the 100 metres, escorted by seven guys.”

She couldn’t have predicted it better.

khayav@gmail.com

http://twitter.com/khayadlanga

Interesting facts about my city Johannesburg

Africa, the motherland

We must not ridicule nor confuse genuine emotional responses with ignorance when African Americans first land here. The ignorant ones are those amongst us who so readily dismiss this response without a moment’s pause to consider or understand the reason for the reaction. (For a while, I was in this number. I too used to laugh. I am no better than the ones who still do.) Simply calling African Americans who do that when they get here is proof of our own ignorance. We who laugh are the ignorant ones. I don’t think we understand the overwhelming emotions that African Americans go through when they come to Africa. I was at the stadium last night when American songstress Keri Hilson said, “it’s good to be in the motherland”. There was much giggling, some even said they knew she’d pull the motherland line. That is said from a place of ignorance and a failure to empathise.

Instead of ridiculing people when they express this, we ought to feel nothing but humility, that we were blessed. It is a blessing that our ancestors were not removed by force to be sold as slaves. A form of slavery where men and women did not give birth to families, but instead bred slaves, much like one would breed cattle, where one’s children were nothing but a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. Families and people from the same villages were separated so they could not pass on stories about their native land to one another. Clearly we don’t understand. We may never have been slaves, but our lack of empathy and lack of understanding might as well be slavery — of our own making and choosing.

In the 80s, when the late great American comedian Richard Pryor decided to leave it all behind for a while and live in Africa, he went to Zimbabwe. I remember watching (it was DVD obviously) him do stand-up about his experience. He said, I may not be quoting him word for word but he said something like, “I went to Zimbabwe. I know how white people feel in America now,” he paused, “relaxed”. We have no idea what it’s like to be black in America.

Yes the kissing of the ground and saying I’m in the motherland may be old. It may be so for us. But it’s not old for the person who steps out of a plane and lands here for the first time. For them, that feeling, that overwhelming emotion is new and needs to be vocalised. Let us criticise ourselves before we criticise.

I have had several conversations with African Americans and when they find out how developed Africa is they say: “American television never shows positive images of Africa. All we see are children with flies, wars, nothing positive.” Granted, some have admitted to me and beat themselves over the fact that they didn’t find out more for themselves about the state of the continent and not just rely on the media.

As much as some of us blame them for having this image of Africa, some of us have one of two images of the African American: the ghetto-living, hoochie mama with her projects, gangster boyfriend. Then there is the image of the high-living rapper, basketball player or football player. We don’t stop to think that there may be those who live in suburbs. This too for us has been the image of the African American. Let’s look at ourselves before we judge them.

In other words, they make assumptions about us, we make assumptions about them too. So neither side has the right to feel superior. We are all wrong for not trying to find out more.

We can either chose to live in our ignorance or try to understand why they feel the way they do when they get here. In fact I would suggest that not just African Americans should feel that way about the motherland. Everyone should. After all, this is where humanity started, if you believe in evolution that is. Some of the world’s oldest human fossils are found right here in Jozi in fact. They are right, this is the motherland. Now leave them alone.

Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life’s work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaidas leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the worlds sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people’s children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldiers courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.”

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who dont.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the worlds — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”

So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he’s outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

South Africans, ah but your land is beautiful!

I attempt to give an imaginary person who wants to visit South Africa an idea of what South Africa is like.

Thank you so much David from Uzbekistan for your questions about my country. I must say, your name is pretty normal, not that it wouldn’t be normal if it were Uzbekistani-sounding, not that I know what it sounds like. Let me stop while I’m behind. I am going to answer some of your questions. Here goes.

1: I live in the biggest city in this country, Johannesburg, otherwise known as eGoli, City of Gold. One of the only cities in the world that was built on gold. Literally. It also happens to be the world’s biggest man-made forest.

2: To answer your question: yes, there are many beautiful women in South Africa. Whenever I’ve left the country I always run into men talking about the beauty of South African women. I couldn’t agree with these people more, sometimes when I find myself walking around and see all the beautiful women we’ve been blessed with, I feel like I died and woke up in South Africa.

3: I love my country except for the days Julius Malema says something err … colourful.

4: The best thing about South Africa? Wow! How can you ask me that? There are so many best things about South Africa (including myself of course). I’d have to say besides the obvious things like the landscape, the wild life (some of my relatives could be mistaken for wild life by the way but don’t tell them). I’d have to say it’s the people. They are amazing. We have some of the friendliest people, so very nice. Some of them though are so nice and polite that they get too shy to ask you for stuff, so they might just take your wallet without asking you. It’s just that they are so very shy. Avoid those ones though.

5: The most interesting thing about this country is that its prisons have a propensity for creating greatness. How you may wonder. During the second Anglo-Boer War, the great Englishman Winston Churchill was arrested but escaped his captors, he would go on to write a successful book about his escapades. Then there was the Mahatma Gandhi who was also imprisoned in South Africa, incidentally he would go on to become a thorn in Winston Churchill’s side, but that’s a story for another day. And of course, our very own Madiba, Nelson Mandela. Our prisons do create greatness indeed. Oh, don’t start thinking that you should go steal a television or something. Things might not turn out so well for you. One thing’s for sure though, they certainly don’t make the same quality inmate as they did in the old days.

6: Oh yes, I do believe we will do extremely well in the World Cup. I know a lot of people are profoundly sceptical. We should get rid of this unattractive sense of pessimism when it comes to our national team. I am very pro-Bafana Bafana, (that would be the nickname of our team). Many worry that we don’t have a lot of strikers. They seem to overlook the fact that we have a lot of trade unions and they have a lot of strikers. Perhaps they should be deployed, so to speak, in the national team.

7: Oh, yes! We have produced many famous people! Some of them famous, some infamous. Our most famous citizen is Nelson Mandela. We have three living Noble Peace Prize winners, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and FW de Klerk. But we’ve had four in total, the other one being Chief Albert Luthuli. I think that this puts pressure on us to make sure that we don’t mess up and start attacking other countries. Let us not forget our Oscar-winning Charlize Theron and Lebo M who won a Grammy for composing music for The Lion King. We also have two Nobel winners for literature. I must stop now, the list is too long and I don’t have time to name our famous people.

All in all I don’t think there is any country in the world quite like ours. I remember seeing many years ago, when I was in high school, a book in a bookstore with the title: Ah, But Your Land is Beautiful by Alan Paton. Those words are so simple yet so elegantly describe this country. Ah but my land is beautiful. I wouldn’t exchange for all the gold in Fort Knox.

*This article originally appeared in Juice magazine, Mango airline’s in-flight magazine.

The president is public property

Julius Malema said that President Jacob Zuma is “our father”, I must admit, I half expected him to complete the statement by saying “who art in heaven”. Let’s face it, the president has never done anything wrong in the history of his existence according to the Youth League and the ANC. St Zuma is saintlier than Mandela. A man who repeatedly said he wasn’t a saint, let alone a messiah. Zuma on the other hand, very few see him as one, yet the ANC likes to present him as one. I know he has never claimed to be one. The ANC seems to have sanctified and raised him to the level of a deity. Maybe we should expect to see government offices adorned with his face in stained glass windows beaming upon us. He is infallible. Every indefensible action is defended. The public and the press are publicly ridiculed for questioning the questionable. He is beyond reproach. Again, not according to him but by those who surround him. The president has said nothing to refute implied sanctification.

When he married his third wife I did not see what the big deal was all about. Let the man have his three mothers-in-law I said. It was his democratic right. Some of us applauded him for his honesty, he sees a woman he likes, he marries her. That was admirable. That was until we found out that he had fathered a 20th child according to reports, out of wedlock. Many people have children out of wedlock. There are such people within my family.

Then the ANC tells us we are being disrespectful for asking questions. Excuse me? They tell us it is a private matter. This does not work for us. Since the taxpayers pay for his wives. When Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the United States and upon arriving in Washington before his inauguration, he said, “the truth is, I suppose I am now public property”. I know fully well that many will give the easy and lazy answer “this is not America”. Of course it’s not. The fact of the matter is that he was put in office by the public. The public foots his bills. The public pays for his spouses. Therefore the public has the right to know, especially considering what an expensive affair this will be for it. As much as the ANC would like to keep him an ANC matter, he is more than a simple ANC matter, he belongs to us, the public. Whether some of the public like him or not, he is theirs. He is a property of the state. We are concerned for his health, his well-being and how he represents us before the world’s stage.

According to News24: “The state will contribute an amount equal to 17% of his salary to a pension fund and will pay two thirds of his medical-aid contribution covering his family. He will also be insured by the state for accident and life cover. When he travels on official business, he may be accompanied by his spouses — (the handbook makes allowance for spouses in a polygamous marriage) and those dependent children who cannot remain at home are entitled to accommodation and subsistence at the expense of the state. The same arrangement applies to travel abroad.” If this is what we pay for then we have the right to know. There is nothing disrespectful about wanting find out what one is paying for.

Everyone celebrates when a child is born. It is a beautiful and good thing and adds incalculable joy to the parents. Having read the president’s statement I get the feeling that he is blaming us for having had unprotected sex with a woman who is not his wife. All of a sudden, if we talk about this issue we are questioning the right of the child to exist. Not at all, we are questioning the apology you made after the rape trial (in which he was exonerated) when you apologised for having had unprotected sex. Of course we appreciate the fact that he is taking responsibility for the child, but then again, he is supposed to take responsibility.

The birth of this child is only a reflection of a lot of men in South Africa. Men who are married and father children with other women. My own father fathered a child with another woman even though he was married to my mother. Clearly, the president is a reflection of what is happening within our society. One would expect that he would try to change this, if not, at least pretend to. Having unprotected sex with a woman who is not his wife is not sending out a positive signal to the rest of our men — particularly after he apologised a few years ago for even more dangerous behaviour, unprotected sex with a woman he knew was HIV-positive at the time. Unfortunately when it comes to his partners and sex this will follow him forever — just like Zapiro’s shower. He is a clear indication of what is wrong and broken with many men in our country. Young men have few positive role models and the president is not helping. By all intents and purposes, even though he has three wives, one can’t shake the feeling that he still cheats on his three wives. That’s what this implied.

It is a pity that we rarely debate policy positions. It’s as though he were a celebrity of sorts, not a head of state. One wonders if the press should be blamed or he should be blamed for putting himself in positions where he is treated like a celebrity. He is in danger of being a celebrity president, where his contribution to the liberation of the country is but a footnote in the books of history. Does the president want to be known for everything else other than the instrumental achievements before the 2000nds? Will he be asked about his child out of wedlock and having unprotected sex after he apologised for it when he is in Davos again? Why can’t the ANC demand discipline from the president?

The best thing about the ANC is the worst thing about it. Loyalty. Loyalty at all costs it seems. The ANC’s relativism when it comes to defending its leaders is disturbing. Senior leaders are always defended even though it is clear that they are in the wrong. I’m not suggesting that people should be thrown under the bus, recognise that something is wrong, correct it and move on. The sooner you do so in public the sooner the irrelevant headlines will disappear.

This begs the question, where does loyalty lie? Is it to party first, then to nation? Or is it because the party is so powerful that the perception is that the ANC is in fact the nation? If that is the view, doesn’t the party fall into the trap of arrogance and a sense that it can do no wrong because it is the sole party that is in fact looking after the needs of the people? The ANC needs to stop running like it is still in exile, still a banned organisation. The symptoms of a secret organisation are still alive.

The problem I have with ANC is the same one Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu had while Nelson Mandela was president. He’d said that the ANC had “stopped the gravy train long enough for it to get on it” a few months into the Mandela presidency. Madiba reprimanded him on TV for this. A few weeks later Tutu was on the phone with him and said “for goodness sake, how come you can shout at me like that in public”, Mandela laughed according to Tutu.

In conclusion, I would like to agree wholeheartedly with Tutu’s words when he said: “There are those of them who don’t actually recognise people who are basically on their side, who are critical, not because we want to see them fail. It is precisely the opposite. It is to say we want to see you succeed and that is why we mention these things … there are those who are becoming … I would say dangerously hypersensitive.”

Inspiring quote by Thabo Mbeki upon his resignation

“Those who complete the course will do so only because they do not, as fatigue sets in, convince themselves that the road ahead is still too long, the inclines too steep, the loneliness impossible to bear and the prize itself of doubtful value.”

President Thabo Mbeki, a line from his resignation address to the nation.

Nelson Mandela: Fascinating anecdotes from people who knew him

Adelaide Tambo, Oliver Tambo said Nelson Mandela would be the president of South Africa – while Chielf Luthili was still alive.

“Nelson had made a speech–a speech that sometimes appears on television–where he is wearing a black jacket and saying that we can’t forever take the oppression meted out by the regime … our young people were getting tired of nonviolence.

And Oliver said to me, ‘This is the president of South Africa.’

Now, that is going very far back. Chief Luthuli was still alive.”

Gearoge Bizos was a constant visitor during Mandela’s years in Prison

“Colonel Aucamp would at times pace up and down outside the room in which we were consulting, locked in with our clients. And Nelson went up to Aucamp, and said, ‘You know these lawyers give me homework … and the table that I have in my cell is a rickety one. Could I please have another table because I am under pressure to do this.’

He spoke politely, and the response of Aucamp was bombastic: ‘Mandela, you are no longer a lawyer in your office to give orders. You are a prisoner. And we will do what we have to. You can’t order us about.’

Nelson looked at him and he said, ‘Have you finished, Colonel?’ He said,’Yes.’ He turned round, looked at the man with a key, who opened the grille door, and he came back, sat down, said nothing. Just continued with the consultation with us as if nothing had happened.

They took a break for lunch. And he came back, with a little smile that you often see and says, ‘Guess what, there’s a brand new table in my cell.’ “

Richard Stengel who collaborated with Nelson Mandela on his autobiography

“There’s a story, it’s not related to prison, but I am going to tell it anyway. We were once on this airplane flight down in Natal, and it was a prop plane. I think there were six seats in it, and there were maybe four of us on the plane. And as soon as he gets on an airplane he picks up a newspaper. He adores newspapers. He didn’t have them for so many years and he revels in the touch of them, and he reads every stupid story. And so we were sitting on the airplane, the plane was up, and he is reading his newspaper, and we’re about, I don’t know, halfway there … I was sitting right across from him, and he pointed out the window … and I saw, to my great horror, that the propeller had stopped going around. And he said very, very calmly, ‘Richard, you might want to inform the pilot that the propeller isn’t working.’ I said, ‘Yes, Madiba.’ I walked to the front of the plane, and the pilot was well aware of it and he said, ‘Go back and sit down. We’ve called the airport. They have the ambulances out there, and they’re going to coat the runway with foam or whatever they do.’

I went back and I told Madiba that, and he just, in that very solemn way, mouth sort of down, listened, and said, ‘Yes.’ And then picked up his newspaper and started reading. I was terrified, and the way I calmed myself was I looked at him. And he was as calm as could be. Like the prisoners on Robben Island must have looked at him when they felt scared, and he just looked as calm as could be.

The plane landed, no problem. He never changed his expression or anything like that. He put his newspaper down, and we came into the airport, and as we got into the airport and we sort of had a moment alone, he turned to me and he said, ‘Man, I was scared up there.’ It was such a revelation because that’s what courage is. Courage is not, not being scared. Courage is being terrified and not showing it. So I was enheartened. I was given courage by looking at him, because he was pretending not to be scared, and that’s what he did for his whole life. The more you pretend that you’re not scared, the more not scared you become. The more you inhabit that role, and that’s what happened in Robben Island.”

Joe Matthews

“I remember once when we were detained at No. 4 prison in Johannesburg after our arrest in 1956, and I was sitting next to him and he observed Chief Luthuli who was staring in the distance. Thinking, obviously.

And Mandela said to me, ‘Do you see that man? That is the mark of a great man. A man who can think and consider things. Now we call that in Xhosa … a man who stares into the horizon, thinking and so on.’

He obviously respected that kind of thing, and he actually said, ‘That’s the mark of a great man,’ that posture by Luthuli …

If you read the accounts of him on Robben Island, you will find people remarking on him having those kind of moments of reflection. He does do that deliberately to think and almost in the sense of the yoga kind of transcendental meditation type of thing.”

Wolfie Kadesh on Mandela’s stubborn nature

“… I brought him into the flat … We had a long discussion. I had to persuade him that it was a good place … nobody amongst the special branch or government would ever dream … because of their mentality towards blacks and whites, that a black man would be living in a white area …

Then we had a discussion and an argument about who is going to sleep where. I had a tiny flat … and I had a bed and I had a camp stretcher in a cupboard. So when I brought out the camp stretcher, I said to him, ‘Well, I’ll sleep on the camp stretcher. You sleep on the bed because you are six foot something, I am five foot something. So the stretcher is just right for me.’ No, he wasn’t going to have that. He hadn’t come there to put me out, and we had a bit of a talk about that and … it was arranged, and I would sleep on the bed.

We had tea and all the rest of it, and then time came to sleep. So he said, ‘You don’t mind, but I’m going to run around.’ He told me that he woke up very early in the morning, about 4:00 in the townships, and that he always went for these long runs. So I said, ‘No man, here you’re in a white area. You can’t get up at 4:00 or 5:00 running around here. They patrol …’ He said, ‘I am going to run. You’ll see, don’t worry. Let’s go to sleep.

About 5:00 in the morning, I woke up and heard these camp stretchers squeak … I looked and I saw him sitting on the end of the stretcher, putting on long-johns, and then the suits … that athletes use … and I said to him, ‘Well, what’s going on here?’ He said, ‘I am going to start running’ … I said, ‘Well, I am not going to give you the key to go out. You can’t go running around.’ Then he got up, in his tracksuit, and he started running on the spot

So that was his running. I thought, ‘Oh well, if you want to run on the spot, good luck to you. I am going to sleep.’ About a half an hour afterwards I woke up again, and he’s still running on the spot … sweating and heaving and it went on for about an hour, this performance, and each time I just turned over and went to sleep again. At the end of it all, I noticed he did a few frog jumps across the flat, jumping up … he had his hands out like this, and he jumped so that he could kick his hands underneath … that took at least an hour. So I said, ‘That’s all right, you can do this but not me.’ He says, ‘No, tomorrow … you are going to join me.’”

Nelson Mandela losing his temper

“Mandela I have seen on only one occasion actually lose his rag as it were. And that was when a warder … a chap by the name of Huysamen, really lambasted us. I can’t recall the details, but it was about abuse of study privileges, this, that and the other, which was completely untrue. They were trying to orchestrate something or the other.

Nelson got so fed up with this chap at one point he actually went to him and said, ‘Look, you don’t dare talk to us like that.’ And went for him. Really gave him hell, you know. ‘Your day will come, and you will this, that and the other.’

I was standing next to him, and this chap sort of marched away with his tail between his legs. And there was a terrible awkward silence and real tension and nobody really knew what was going to happen.

So I then asked Mandela afterwards, ‘What happened there? Why did you do that?’ And I’ll never forget it, he said to me, ‘That was very deliberate.’ And I must say, I didn’t initially believe him. But when I thought about it, he is so deliberate. I thought it is quite possible that he really did orchestrate this thing you see. But I must say, it was as true to life as you can possibly think.”

Fikile Bam, Nelson Mandela confronting a warder on prison

“There is one other instance, which I remember very well. There had been a newly appointed head of the prison … he really wanted to turn the prison around. He said that the prison was too soft and too comfortable and he said [it had] become a university rather than a prison, and he was going to take off our study privileges and was going to do all sorts of things. He was quite rude, his name was Badenhorst.

… At about the same time, three judges came to see us in prison … and they came to our group and naturally went to talk to Nelson, and to find out from him what the conditions were like … They had come in the company of the commanding officer, Badenhorst, and they were asking [Mandela] about prison conditions. And he, as usual, was setting out a whole list of complaints to the judges, and complaining, particularly, about the treatment Badenhorst had brought about, in the presence of Badenhorst.

Badenhorst was a very fiery and temperamental person and he couldn’t wait, even while Nelson was speaking, and he shouted at him, ‘Nelson, you forget one thing, that these people are going to leave, and the two of us are going to remain here together.’ And the judges carried that message with them. And soon after Badenhorst was transferred from Robben Island.

So he had this way about him that he really did not fear people at all. And he had a lot of confidence in himself as a person. He never regarded himself as being beneath anyone, even while he was wearing shorts as a prisoner. “

Jessie Duarte, how Nelson Mandela always made his own bed almost offending the Chinese

“He always made his own bed, no matter where we traveled. I remember we were in Shanghai, in a very fancy hotel, and the Chinese hospitality requires that the person who cleans your room and provides you with your food, does exactly that. If you do it for yourself, it could even be regarded as an insult.

So in Shanghai I tried to say to him, ‘Please don’t make your own bed, because there’s this custom here.’ And he said, ‘Call them, bring them to me.’

So I did. I asked the hotel manager to bring the ladies who would be cleaning the room, so that he could explain why he himself has to make his own bed, and that they not feel insulted. He didn’t ever want to hurt people’s feelings. He never really cared about what great big people think of him, but he did care about what small people thought of him. That used to amaze me. He didn’t mind if he insulted a very important person, or said something to them that was unkind, because he said they could fend and fight for themselves. But he would never insult someone who did not have power.”

Redi Direko is competely wrong

I like Redi Direko and I respect her highly but boy is she wrong. In a column she penned today in the Sowetan she makes a number assertions about Facebook that are of course, in my arrogant opinion, completely ill-informed. I use the word ill-informed because she has been rather matter-of-fact about something she is not a part of – as if she understands it as someone who is in fact part of it. I’m not saying that one can’t have an informed opinion about a subject simply because one doesn’t participate in it. All I am saying is that a person who is in it is far more informed than an observer. If she had been on Facebook for a while and then decided to delete her profile, she would have arrived at a different conclusion than the one she has arrived at. There are nuances that an observer will miss because that’s all they do, observe.

Having said that, I prefer Twitter to Facebook even though I am on both platforms. What Redi fails to understand is that social media has in fact confounded those experts who believed that there would be less human interaction because of the explosion of social media. On the contrary, it has in fact increased it. I’m not talking about the obvious use of it as an information tool. It is used as a tool for the like-minded to meet up and for friends to gather. According to research people interact more with one another because of social media, not less.

I know more about my friends than I did, I am more connected to them than ever before. I meet with them on a much more frequent basis than before. If anything, this new tool strengthens and tests friendships.

Every time some new technology makes it’s way we get told by naysayers about the dangers of this new medium. When computers started making headway into the business world, paper manufactures worried that less paper would be used, meaning they’d make less money, the opposite happened -we use more paper. There were even suggestions that they would reduce working hours and therefore result in fewer workers, once again the opposite happened, we saw an increase in the number of workers, instead of cutting down number of workers, more workers were created because of the computer.

Technology has surprisingly connected us and made us more human, not less. #asyouwere

ANCYL should heed Mbeki’s warning – politicians and the persuit of wealth

In the last week we have been reading newspaper reports about Julius Malema’s two houses which are worth a cool R4.6 million and cars worth R1.2 million on a reported monthly salary of R20 000. Since he is a politician people are curious to find out how he was able to accumulate this wealth. He is not a member of parliament and is not obliged to disclose. According to Sunday newspaper reports such as the Sunday Times, City Press and others, he is able to pay for his lifestyle because of a stake he has in certain companies which have been awarded government tenders worth R140 millions.

We should not question the fact that he has been able to accumulate his wealth, what should be questioned is the manner in which the tenders were awarded. Was the tendering process fair? This is not to say that his companies did not deserve them, rather, was the process legitimate? Those are the question that need asking. Like anyone else he has the right to make money. If there is nothing wrong with the manner in which the contracts were awarded then we can sit back and applaud his business acumen, if however there is something not so kosher we have every right to know and demand answers.

We should not however jump to conclusions that they were awarded improperly simply because we don’t like the guy, or assume that he can’t accumulate wealth simply because he got a G at Woodwork.

Having said that, I would like to point out to an address by then president Thabo Mbeki at the Nelson Mandela Lecture, 29 July 2006, where he discussed the dangers of the new money chasing society we have become accustomed to. It has to be said that this is a system he helped create even if it was unintentional on his part. I quote from the next paragraph his prophetic warning…

He says, “Thus, everyday, and during every hour of our time beyond sleep, the demons embedded in our society, that stalk us at every minute, seem always to beckon each one of us towards a realizable dream and nightmare. With every passing second, they advise, with rhythmic and hypnotic regularity – get rich! get rich! get rich!

“And thus has it come about that many of us accept that our common natural instinct to escape from poverty is but the other side of the same coin on whose reverse side are written the words – at all costs, get rich!

In these circumstances, personal wealth, and the public communication of the message that we are people of wealth, becomes, at the same time, the means by which we communicate the message that we are worthy citizens of our community, the very exemplars of what defines the product of a liberated

South Africa.

This peculiar striving produces the particular result that manifestations of wealth, defined in specific ways, determine the individuality of each one of us who seeks to achieve happiness and self-fulfilment, given the liberty that the revolution of 1994 brought to all of us.

In these circumstances, the meaning of freedom has come to be defined not by the seemingly ethereal and therefore intangible gift of liberty, but by the designer labels on the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, the spaciousness of our houses and our yards, their geographic location, the company we keep, and what we do as part of that company.

In the event that what I have said has come across as a meaningless ramble, let me state what I have been saying more directly.

It is perfectly obvious that many in our society, having absorbed the value system of the capitalist market, have come to the conclusion that, for them, personal success and fulfilment means personal enrichment at all costs, and the most theatrical and striking public display of that wealth.

What this means is that many in our society have come to accept that what is socially correct is not the proverbial expression – “manners maketh the man” – but the notion that each one of us is as excellent a human being as our demonstrated wealth suggests!”

To read the complete speech click here http://khayav.com/2010/02/22/the-pursuit-of-wealth-thabo-mbeki-lecture-speech-at-nelson-mandela-memorial/

“The pursuit of wealth” Thabo Mbeki lecture (speech) at Nelson Mandela Memorial

This is one of my favourite speeches by Thabo Mbeki as he addressed the dangers of the pursuit of wealth at all costs. The lecture was televised. I recall seeing Tokyo Sexwale smilling and shifting uncomfortably as Mbeki spoke.

I believe I know this as a matter of fact, that the great masses of our country everyday pray that the new South Africa that is being born will be a good, a moral, a humane and a caring South Africa, which, as it matures, will progressively guarantee the happiness of all its citizens.

I say this as I begin this Lecture to warn you about my intentions, which are about trying to convince you that because of the infancy of our brand new society, we have the possibility to act in ways that would, for the foreseeable future, infuse the values of Ubuntu into our very being as a people.

But what is it that constitutes Ubuntu – beyond the standard and yet correct rendition – Motho ke motho ka motho yo mongoe: Umuntu ngumuntu

ngabantu!

The Book of Poverbs in the Holy Bible contains some injunctions that capture a number of elements of what I believe constitute important features of the

Spirit of Ubuntu, which we should strive to implant in the very bosom of the new South Africa that is being born – the food of the soul that would inspire all our people to say that they are proud to be South African!

The Proverbs say:

“Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and tomorrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee.

“Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee. Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm. Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways.”

The Book of Proverbs assumes that as human beings, we have the human capacity to do as it says – not to withhold the good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of (our) hand to do it, and not to say NO to our neighbour, come again, and we will give you something tomorrow, even when we can give the necessary help today.

It assumes that we can be encouraged not to devise evil against our neighbours, with whom we otherwise live in harmony.

It assumes that we are capable of responding to the injunction that we should not declare war against anybody without cause, especially those who have not caused us any harm.

It urges that in our actions, we should not seek to emulate the demeanour of our oppressors, nor adopt their evil practices.

I am conscious of the fact that to the cynics, all this sounds truly like the behaviour we would expect and demand of angels. I am also certain that all of us are convinced that, most unfortunately, we would find it difficult to find such angels in our country, who would number more than the fingers on two hands!

It may indeed very well be that, as against coming across those we can honestly describe as good people, we would find it easier to identify not only evil-doers, but also those who intentionally set out to do evil. In this regard, we would not be an exception in terms both of time and space.

3

To illustrate what I am trying to say, I will take the liberty to quote words from the world of drama. I know of none of Shakespeare’s Tragedies, except Richard III, that begins with an open declaration of villainy by the very villain of the play.

This well-known play begins with an oration by the Duke of Gloucester, who later becomes King Richard III, in which he unashamedly declares his evil intentions, in these famous words:

“Now is the winter of our discontent Made glorious summer by this sun of York;

And all the clouds that lour’d upon our house

In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.

Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;

Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;…

And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,

To entertain these fair well-spoken days,

I am determined to prove a villain

And hate the idle pleasures of these days.

Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,

By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,

To set my brother Clarence and the king

In deadly hate the one against the other…”

This open proclamation of evil intent stands in direct opposition to the directive in the Proverbs, which said, “Devise not evil against thy neighbour, seeing he dwelleth securely by thee. Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm.”

4

Surely, all this tells us the naked truth that the intention to do good, however noble in its purposes, does not guarantee that such good will be done.

Nevertheless we must ask ourselves the question whether this reality of the presence of many Richards III in our midst, dictates that we should, accordingly, avoid setting ourselves the goal to do good!

Many years ago now, Nelson Mandela made bold to say that our country needs an “RDP of the soul”, the Reconstruction and Development if its soul.

He made this call as our country, in the aftermath of our liberation in 1994, was immersed in an effort to understand the elements of the Reconstruction and

Development Programme that had constituted the core of the Election Manifesto of the ANC in our first democratic elections.

That RDP was eminently about changing the material conditions of the lives of our people. It made no reference to matters of the soul, except indirectly. For instance, the RDP document said:

“The RDP integrates (economic) growth, development, reconstruction and redistribution into a unified programme. The key to this link is an infrastructural programme that will provide access to modern and effective services like electricity, water, telecommunications, transport, health, education and training for all our people…This will lead to an increased output in all sectors of the economy, and by modernising our infrastructure and human resource development, we will also enhance export capacity. Success in linking reconstruction and development is essential if we are to achieve peace and security for all.”

All of these were, and remain critically important and eminently correct objectives that we must continue to pursue. Indeed, in every election since 1994, our contending parties have vied for the favours of our people on the basis of statistics that are about all these things.

All revolutions, which, by definition, seek to replace one social order with another, are, in the end, and in essence, concerned with human beings and the improvement of the human condition. This is also true of our Democratic Revolution of 1994.

Assuming this assertion to be true, we must also say that human fulfillment consists of more than “access to modern and effective services like electricity, water, telecommunications, transport, health, education and training for all our people”, to use the words in the RDP document.

As distinct from other species of the animal world, human beings also have spiritual needs. It might perhaps be more accurate and less arrogant to say that these needs are more elevated and have a more defining impact on human beings than they do on other citizens of the animal world.

Thus do all of us, and not merely the religious leaders, speak of the intangible element that is immanent in all human beings – the soul!

Acceptance of this proposition as a fact must necessarily mean that we have to accept the related assertion that, consequently, all human societies also have a soul!

To deny this would demand that we argue in a convincing manner, and therefore with all due logical coherence, that the fact that individual human beings might have a soul does not necessarily mean that the human societies they combine to constitute will themselves, in consequence, also have a soul!

I dare say that this would prove to be an impossible task. Nevertheless, we must accept that, as in the contrast provided by the Proverbs and Richard III, and with regard to the construction of a humane and caring society, we must accept that this entails a struggle, rather than any self-evident and inevitable victory of good over evil.

The question must therefore arise – for those among us who believe that we represent the good, what must we do to succeed in our purposes!

Since no human action takes place outside of established objective reality, and since we want to achieve our objectives, necessarily we must strive to understand the social conditions that would help to determine whether we succeed or fail.

What I have said relates directly to what needed and needs to be done to achieve the objective that Nelson Mandela set the nation, to accomplish the RDP of its soul.

In this regard, I will take the liberty to quote what I said in 1978 in a Lecture delivered in Canada, reflecting on the formation of South African society, which was later reproduced in the ANC journal, “Sechaba”, under the title “The Historical Injustice”.

“The historic compromise of 1910 has therefore this significance that in granting the vanquished Boer equal political and social status with the British victor, it imposed on both the duty to defend the status quo against especially those whom that status quo defined as the dominated. The capitalist class, to whom everything has a cash value, has never considered moral incentives as very dependable. As part of the arrangement, it therefore decided that material incentives must play a prominent part.

“It consequently bought out the whole white population. It offered a price to the white workers and the Afrikaner farmers in exchange for an undertaking that they would shed their blood in defence of capital. Both worker and farmer, like Faustus, took the devil’s offering and, like Faustus, they will have to pay on the appointed day.

“The workers took the offering in monthly cash grants and reserved jobs. The farmers took their share by having black labour, including and especially prison labour directed to the farms. They also took it in the form of huge subsidies and loans to help them maintain a ‘civilised standard of living’.”

Of relevance to our purposes this evening, the critical point conveyed in these paragraphs is that, within the context of the development of capitalism in our country, individual acquisition of material wealth, produced through the oppression and exploitation of the black majority, became the defining social value in the organisation of white society.

Because the white minority was the dominant social force in our country, it entrenched in our society as a whole, including among the oppressed, the deep- seated understanding that personal wealth constituted the only true measure of individual and social success.

As we achieved our freedom in 1994, this had become the dominant social value, affecting the entirety of our population. Inevitably, as an established social norm, this manifested itself even in the democratic state machinery that had, seemingly “seamlessly”, replaced the apartheid state machinery.

I am arguing that the new order, born of the victory in 1994, inherited a well-entrenched value system that placed individual acquisition of wealth at the very centre of the value system of our society as a whole.

In practice this meant that, provided this did not threaten overt social disorder, society assumed a tolerant or permissive attitude towards such crimes as theft and corruption, especially if these related to public property.

The phenomenon we are describing, which we considered as particularly South African, was in fact symptomatic of the capitalist system in all countries. It had been analysed by all serious commentators on the capitalist political-economy, including such early analysts as Adam Smith.

Specifically, in this regard, we are speaking of the observations made by the political-economists that, since the onset of capitalism in England, the values of the capitalist market, of individual profit maximisation, had tended to displace the values of human solidarity.

In despair at this development, R. H. Tawney wrote in his famous book, “Religion and the Rise of Capitalism”:

“To argue, in the manner of Machiavelli, that there is one rule for business and another for private life, is to open the door to an orgy of unscrupulousness before which the mind recoils…(Yet) granted that I should love my neighbour as myself, the questions which, under modern conditions of large-scale (economic) organisation, remain for solution are, Who precisely is my neighbour? And, How exactly am I to make my love for him effective in practice?

“To these questions the conventional religious teaching supplied no answer, for it had not even realised that they could be put…Religion had not yet learned to console itself for the practical difficulty of applying its moral principles, by clasping the comfortable formula that for the transactions of economic life no moral principles exist.”

In his well known book, “The Great Transformation”, in a Chapter headed “Market and Man”, Karl Polanyi went on to say:

“To separate labour from other activities of life and to subject it to the laws of the market was to annihilate all organic forms of existence and to replace them by a different type of organisation, an atomistic and individualist one.

“Such a scheme of destruction was best served by the application of the principle of freedom of contract. In practice this meant that the non- contractual organisations of kinship, neighbourhood, profession, and creed were to be liquidated since they claimed the allegiance of the individual and thus restrained his freedom.

“To represent this principle as one of non- interference, as economic liberals were wont to do, was merely the expression of an ingrained prejudice in favour of a definite kind of interference, namely, such as would destroy non-contractual relations between individuals and prevent the spontaneous reformation.”

In a Foreword to a recent edition of this book, Joseph Stiglitz says: “Polanyi stresses a particular defect in the self-regulating economy that only recently has been brought back into discussion. It involves the relationship between the economy and society, with how economic systems, or reforms, can affect how individuals relate to one another. Again, as the importance of social relations has increasingly become recognised, the vocabulary has changed. We now talk, for instance, about social capital.”

With reference to this Lecture, the central point made by Polanyi is that the capitalist market destroys relations of “kinship, neighbourhood, profession, and creed”, replacing these with the pursuit of personal wealth by citizens who, as he says, have become “atomistic and individualistic.”

Thus, everyday, and during every hour of our time beyond sleep, the demons embedded in our society, that stalk us at every minute, seem always to beckon each one of us towards a realizable dream and nightmare. With every passing second, they advise, with rhythmic and hypnotic regularity – get rich! get rich! get rich!

And thus has it come about that many of us accept that our common natural instinct to escape from poverty is but the other side of the same coin on whose reverse side are written the words – at all costs, get rich!

In these circumstances, personal wealth, and the public communication of the message that we are people of wealth, becomes, at the same time, the means by which we communicate the message that we are worthy citizens of our community, the very exemplars of what defines the product of a liberated

South Africa.

This peculiar striving produces the particular result that manifestations of wealth, defined in specific ways, determine the individuality of each one of us who seeks to achieve happiness and self-fulfilment, given the liberty that the revolution of 1994 brought to all of us.

In these circumstances, the meaning of freedom has come to be defined not by the seemingly ethereal and therefore intangible gift of liberty, but by the designer labels on the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, the spaciousness of our houses and our yards, their geographic location, the company we keep, and what we do as part of that company.

In the event that what I have said has come across as a meaningless ramble, let me state what I have been saying more directly.

It is perfectly obvious that many in our society, having absorbed the value system of the capitalist market, have come to the conclusion that, for them, personal success and fulfilment means personal enrichment at all costs, and the most theatrical and striking public display of that wealth.

What this means is that many in our society have come to accept that what is socially correct is not the proverbial expression – “manners maketh the man” – but the notion that each one of us is as excellent a human being as our demonstrated wealth suggests!

On previous occasions, I have cited statements made by the well-known financier, George Soros, which directly confront the crisis to social cohesion and human solidarity caused by what I have sought to address – the elevation of the profit motive and the personal acquisition of wealth as the principal and guiding objectives in the construction of modern societies, including our own.

With your permission, and because it is relevant to what I am trying to communicate, I will take the liberty to quote this paragraph once again, believing that it resonates with a particular sense of honesty, because it emanates from one of the iconic figures of late 20th century capitalism.

Among other things, George Soros said that in an earlier epoch, “People were guided by a set of moral principles that found expression in behaviour outside the scope of the market mechanism…

“Unsure of what they stand for, people increasingly rely on money as the criterion of value. What is more expensive is considered better…People deserve respect and admiration because they are rich. What used to be a medium of exchange has usurped the place of fundamental values, reversing the relationship postulated by economic theory. What used to be professions have turned into businesses. The cult of success has replaced a belief in principles. Society has lost its anchor…

“The laissez-faire argument against income redistribution invokes the doctrine of the survival of the fittest…There is something wrong with making the survival of the fittest a guiding principle of civilised society…Cooperation is as much a part of the (economic) system as competition, and the slogan ‘survival of the fittest’ distorts this fact…

“I blame the prevailing attitude, which holds that the unhampered pursuit of self-interest will bring abou tan eventual international equilibrium (in the world economy).”

(All quotations from: George Soros: “The Capitalist

Threat”. The Atlantic Monthly, February 1997.)

The critical concern that George Soros has expressed is what he describes as “market fundamentalism”, the dominance and precedence of the capitalist motive of private profit maximisation, which has evolved into the central objective that informs the construction of modern human society in all its elements.

Nothing can come out of this except the destruction of human society, resulting from the atomisation of society into an agglomeration of individuals who pursue mutually antagonistic materialist goals.

Necessarily, and inevitably, this cannot but negate social cohesion and mutually beneficial human solidarity, and therefore the most fundamental condition of the existence of all human beings, namely, the mutually interdependent human relationships without which the individual human being cannot exist.

I am arguing that, whatever the benefit to any individual member of our nation, including all those present in this hall, we nevertheless share a fundamental objective to defeat the tendency in our society towards the deification of personal wealth as the distinguishing feature of the new citizen of the new South Africa.

With some trepidation, advisedly assuming that there is the allotted proportion of hardened cynics present here this evening, I will nevertheless make bold to quote an ancient text, which reads, in Old English:

“Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.

“How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: so shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man.”

I know that given the level of education of our audience this evening, the overwhelming majority among us will know that I have extracted the passages I have quoted from the Book of Proverbs contained in the St James’ edition of the Holy Bible.

It may be that the scepticism of our age has dulled our collective and individual sensitivity to the messages of this Book of Faith and all the messages that it seeks to convey to all of us.

In this regard, I know that I have not served the purposes of this Book well, by exploiting the possibility it provides, to say to you and everybody else who might be listening – “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise…”

Everyday, the ant, one of the smallest inhabitants of our common animal world, goes about her ways in search of sustenance, depending on nature’s harvest in all seasons, as well as her own little ways, to provide her with meat in the hot summer months.

To consider her ways means that we too, who unknowingly squash to death the miniscule pygmies of the world, as we tread the common earth as giants of the universe, means that we must develop the wisdom that will ensure the survival and cohesion of human society.

It assumes that we have the humility to understand that “a little folding of the hands to sleep”, travel and service in the defence of the nation, might impoverish us by depriving us of our regular meals, but simultaneously make us “happy (as) the man that (finds) wisdom, and the man that (gets) understanding.”

It would be dishonest of me not to assume that what I have cited from the Book of Proverbs will, at best, evoke literary interest, and, at worst, a minor theological controversy.

My own view is that the Proverbs raise important issues that bear on what our nation is trying to do to define the soul of the new South Africa.

I believe they communicate a challenging message about how we should respond to the situation immanent in our society concerning the adulation of personal wealth, and the attendant tendency to pay little practical regard to what each one of us might do to assist our neighbour to achieve the goal of a better life.

I must also accept that many among us might very well think that, like the proverbial King Canute, I am trying to wish away the waves of self-aggrandisement that might be characteristic of global human society.

To return to the Holy Bible, the Book of Genesis says, “In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return”. (Genesis 3:19).

This Biblical text suggests that of critical importance to every South African is consideration of the material conditions of life, and therefore the attendant pursuit of personal wealth. After all, what interpretation should be attached to the statementthat “In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou eat bread”!

Perhaps strangely, this could be said to coincideexactly with a fundamental proposition advanced by the founders of Marxism, expressed by Friederich Engels at the funeral of Karl Marx in the followingwords:

“Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.”

Putting all this in more dramatic language, Marx had said: “Man must eat before he can think”! In this regard, Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the 1917 Russian Revolution, said: “Before we perceive, we breathe: we cannot exist without air, food and drink”.

In the context of this Lecture, and what we will say later, we must state that Marx and Engels represented a particular point of view in the evolution of the discipline of philosophy, and were not asserting any love for the private accumulation of wealth. They were “materialists”, who were militantly opposed to another philosophical tendency described as “idealism”.

One of the most famous expressions of this “idealism” was stated by the French scholar and philosopher, Rene Descartes, who wrote, in Latin: “Cogito, ergo sum.” (“I think, therefore I am”, and, in the original French rendition, “Je pense, donc je suis”.)

In the context of our own challenges, this “idealism” must serve to focus our attention on issues other than the tasks of the production and distribution of material wealth.

The philosophers in our ranks will have to engage the old debate of the relationship between mind and matter expressed in the statements, “Man must eat before he can think.”!, and “I think, therefore I am.”

I am certain that our country’s philosopher- theologians will continue to be interested in these discussions. After all, some of the earliest expression of “idealism”, as a philosophical expression, is also contained in the Holy Bible.

In this regard, for instance, St John’s Gospel says: “In the beginning was the Word…”

I am certain that many in this auditorium have been asking themselves the question why I have referred so insistently on the Christian Holy Scriptures. Let me explain.

I believe that it is obvious to all of us that economic news and our economic challenges have come to occupy a central element of our daily diet of information.

Matters relating to such important issues as unemployment and job creation, disbursements from the national budget and expenditures on such items of education, health, welfare and transport, the economic growth rate, the balance between our imports and exports, the value of the Rand, skills development, broad based black economic empowerment, and the development of the “second economy”, have all become part of our daily discourse.

Nevertheless the old intellectual debate between “materialists” and “idealists”, whatever side we take in this regard, must tell us that human life is about more than the economy, and therefore material considerations.

I believe that as a nation we must make a special effort to understand and act on this, because of what I have said already, that personal pursuit of material gain, as the beginning and end of our life purpose, is already beginning to corrode our social and national cohesion.

Clearly, what this means is that when we talk of a better life for all, within the context of a shared sense of national unity and national reconciliation, we must look beyond the undoubtedly correct economic objectives our nation has set itself.

In this context, I must say that, most unfortunately, there is much trouble in the world. Much too regularly all of us are exposed, daily, to news of human-made conflict and death, and the disasters caused by poverty and natural disasters.

In reality I must confess that I have hardly ever heard of conflicts caused merely by low economic growth rates, currency movements and balance of payments problems, except to the extent that these produce a crisis in society.

Currently, none of us can avoid being extremely concerned about what is happening in the Middle East. What is happening in this region constitutes a tinder box that has the potential to set the whole world aflame. As a country and people, we surely know that the highly negative events in the Middle

East are of direct and immediate concern to us.

It seems tragically clear that here we are confronted with an impending catastrophe that is almost out of control. Nothing that has been done and said during this period of high crisis that has produced the necessary agreement which would pull humanity back from the brink of an escalating conflict that can only feed on itself, leading to a further fanning of the terrible fires that already seem to be burning out of control.

In this regard we must pose the question whether, even in the medium term, we are not ineluctably progressing towards the situation when the centre cannot hold. I refer here not only to the serious problems in the Middle East but to the phenomenon of social conflict everywhere else in the world.

As Europe and the world sowed the seeds for the catastrophe later represented by the Second World War as in a Greek tragedy, the eminent Irish poet, William Butler Yeats, like other European thinkers, sounded alarm bells that nobody seemed to hear.

What he said survives today as outstanding poetry. Hopefully, the warning he sounded so many decades ago will be heard today, so that, by our acts of commission and omission, we do not condemn humanity to an age of extreme misery and death that could have been avoided.

In an appeal to the Muses, when all else seems to be failing, I take this opportunity humbly to summon from the grave an extraordinary human mind, to inspire the living to focus on the dangers ahead, and strive to ensure that, emanating from Jerusalem, the acre of the fountain of many faiths, no monstrous beast slouches out of Bethlehem to be born!

Thus do I appeal that all of us, the mighty and the lowly, hear the words of the poet not only with our ears, but also with our minds and our hearts, as he spoke of “The Second Coming”!

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand…

A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds…

…but now I know

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

And what rough beast, its hour come round at

last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

I believe that for us to ensure that things do not fall apart, we must, in the first instance, never allow that the market should be the principal determinant of the nature of our society. We should firmly oppose the “market fundamentalism” which George Soros has denounced as the force that has led society to lose its anchor.

Instead, we must place at the centre of our daily activities the pursuit of the goals of social cohesion and human solidarity. We must, therefore, strive to integrate into the national consciousness the value system contained in the world outlook described as Ubuntu.

We must therefore constantly ask ourselves the question – what is it in our country that militates against social cohesion and human solidarity? I believe that none of us present here tonight would have any difficulty in answering this question.

I am therefore certain that we would all agree that to achieve the social cohesion and human solidarity we seek, we must vigorously confront the legacy of poverty, racism and sexism. At the same time, we must persist in our efforts to achieve national reconciliation.

Mere reliance on the market would never help us to achieve these outcomes. Indeed, if we were to rely on the market to produce these results, what would happen would be the exacerbation of the deep- seated problems of poverty, racism and sexism and a retreat from the realisation of the objective of national reconciliation.

Then indeed would we open the door to the demons that W.B. Yeats saw slouching towards Bethlehem to be born – emerging from the situation where the centre could not hold, in which mere anarchy would be loosed upon the world.

We must therefore say that the Biblical injunction is surely correct, that “Man cannot live by bread alone”, and therefore that the mere pursuit of individual wealth can never satisfy the need immanent in all human beings to lead lives of happiness.

The conflicts we see today and have seen in many parts of the world should themselves communicate the daily message to us that the construction of cohesive human society concerns much more than the attainment of high economic growth rates, important as this objective is.

As we agonise over the unnecessary killings of innocent people and the destruction of much- needed infrastructure in Iraq and Palestine, in Lebanon and Israel, we have to ensure that we do not slide into an era when the falcon cannot hear the falconer, when things fall apart and the centre cannot hold.

Indeed, as we, South Africans, grapple with our own challenges, billions of the poor and the marginalised across the globe see the world ever evolving into a more sinister, cold and bitter place: this is the world that is gradually defined by increasing racism, xenophobia, ethnic animosity, religious conflicts, and the scourge of terrorism.

In this context, we have seen the rise of rightwing formations, racism, xenophobia and religious intolerance in France, Germany, Holland, Russia and many other European countries. This, in part, is a reaction to the relentless development of complex and varied forms that societies are ineluctably assuming due to the processes of globalisation.

It nevertheless also points to the absence of an integrative thrust – some reconciler – the institutionalised processes that would end the sense of alienation and marginalisation that leads to social conflict.

Indeed even in these developed societies, rising levels of poverty and insecurity have invariably conspired to fertilise the ground from which germinates ignorance about the ‘other’, and portend a bleak future for the prospect of what has been called a dialogue among civilisations.

In many European countries, immigration from the South is seen as an intrusive force that is bound to create ‘impurities’ in local cultures and in many instances, put a burden on available resources. In this regard, I am certain that all of us have been dismayed to see the way in which many in Europe have responded to the African economic migrants, who daily risk their lives to escape the grinding poverty in our own African countries.

Fortunately, in our case, I would say that our nation has begun to exhibit many critical common features deriving from a unified vision of a society based on non-racialism, non-sexism, shared prosperity, and peace and stability. Yet, at the same time, we still display strong traits of our divided past, with the debate about our future quite often coalescing along definite racial lines.

Despite this, and despite the advances we have made in our 12 years of freedom, we must also recognise the reality that we still have a long way to go before we can say we have eradicated the embedded impulses that militate against social cohesion, human solidarity and national reconciliation.

We should never allow ourselves the dangerous luxury of complacency, believing that we are immune to the conflicts that we see and have seen in so many parts of the world.

At the very same time as a ray of hope shone over our country and continent with the liberation of our country in 1994, and as you, Madiba, declared to the world that “the sun shall never set on so glorious a day”, our fellow Africans, the Rwandese people, engulfed in a horrific genocide, lamented in unison that: ‘the angels have left us’.

In a Foreword to the book of the same name, Archbishop Tutu said: “When we come face to face with ghastly atrocities we are appalled and want to ask: ‘But what happened to these people that they have acted in this manner? What happened to their humanity that they should become inhumane?’

“…Yes we hang our heads in shame as we witness our extraordinary capacity to be vicious, cruel and almost devoid of humanness.”

The imperative we face is that we should never permit that our country should witness the actions devoid of humanness of which Archbishop Tutu spoke, some of which were a feature of our long years of colonialism and apartheid.

Indeed, in a world that still suffers from the blight of intolerance, wars, antagonistic conflicts, racism, tribalism and marginalisation, national reconciliation and reconciliation among the nations, will remain a challenge that must occupy the entire human race continuously.

In our case we should say that we are fortunate that we had a Nelson Mandela who made bold to give us the task to attend to the “RDP of the soul”, and lent his considerable weight to the achievement of the goal of national reconciliation and the achievement of the goal of a better life for all our people.

Ten years ago, Madiba travelled to the Republic of Congo to assist the people of the then Zaire, and now the Democratic Republic of Congo, to make peace among themselves. In this regard, he was conscious of the task we share as Africans to end the conflicts on our Continent, many of which are driven by the failure to effect the RDP of the African soul, to uphold the principles of Ubuntu, consciously to strive for social cohesion, human solidarity and national reconciliation.

Tomorrow the people of the DRC will go to the polls to elect their President and Members of the National Assembly. Everything points to the happy outcome that these democratic elections, the first in more that 40 years, will produce a result that truly reflects the will of the people of the DRC.

We must therefore say that we have arrived at a proud moment of hope for the DRC and Africa, and wish the sister people of the DRC unqualified success.

Yes, the Middle East is engulfed in flames that are devouring many people in this region, and cause enormous pain to ourselves as well. But this we can also say, difficult as it may be for some fully to accept, what the people of the DRC have done and will do, is also helping to define a world of hope, radically different from the universe of despair which seems to imprison the sister peoples of the Middle East.

I can think of no better birthday present for Madiba than tomorrow’s elections in the DRC, and no better tribute to the initiative he took 10 years ago to plead with the leaders of the Congolese people that together, as Africans, we must build a society based on the noble precept that – Motho ke motho ka motho yo mongoe: Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu!

Once again, happy birthday Madiba!

Thank you.

Love them anyway

Human nature is a fascinating thing. Beautiful and dirty, strong yet fragile. It engages in the futility of failure and the ecstasy of success. At times we watch what we think is successful only fail – what we deemed a failure succeed. In our pursuit for immediate success and/or glory we fail to look at the marathon that is life. Life counts success only at the end.

We praise those who agree with us and vilify those who do not. We laugh at someone else to feel better about ourselves and ask others to join in, for if others join in, then that justifies, verifies and adds moral weight to the rightness of the morality to “laugh at”. This of course is all good until it is our turn to be laughed at, then all moral justifications we used suddenly do not apply to us. Then people are being cruel, petty and jealous. The truth is some people will find a reason to dislike you even if there isn’t one. To paraphrase Mzwakhe Mbuli, “Love them, anyway.”

This is all part of being human. Most of the time when given a choice to be our better selves we fall into the easy trap of falling into our worse selves because, let’s face it, it is far easier to be unkind than it is to be kind. It is easier to be weak than it is to be strong.  This is the reason we chose cruelty over kindness, judging people before we have come to know them. This is the reason people try bring themselves up by bringing others down, in the end, this pulls them down – it is all weakness. Weakness is part of the human condition. I am guilty of it too. We all are. It takes strength to allow oneself to be “touched…by the better angels of our nature,” to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln.

Whatever your fellow man is like, whatever his weakness, however he tries to bring himself up by putting you down, love him anyway.

Please help. Kid in California looking for Dumisani Dlamini, her dad

I cried when I read this email. I received the saddest email on YouTube just now. A kid in New York (I believe) is looking for her dad. He was in Mbongeni Ngema’s Sarafina. This kid was born 14 years ago, his dad was in New York on Broadway 14 years ago, she has never seen him. If you know of a Dumisani Dlamini who was in Sarafina 14 years ago please don’t hesitate to mail me, khayav@gmail.com I will post the girl’s email as it.

“This has nothing to do with this video. :’( I’m Amala Dlamini and my dad’s name is Dumisani Dlamini. I’m 14 and I haven’t met him yet. I only have pictures. He has no facebook or messaging source. He was in Sarafina and he performed on the lion king in new york city on broadway. I just want to find him and there’s SO MANY Dlaminis on facebook I don’t even know if they’re related to me. It’s sad. I just want to talk to my daddy. :’( “

I would like to believe this is legit, if not then I’m an idiot. But I chose to be an idiot if that is the risk I’m taking to help this kid. Let’s help her. Please.

Boity in the Wimpy Ad: Cheesenator

This may look like nepotism because I worked on the strategy. What that means is that I worked on the approach the creative team had to employ to make the ad. My involvement then ends once I look at the idea and I believe it is on strategy. Then the work is approve and taken to the client. The client approves it. It is only then that the casting process begins.
I had no idea Boity went to cast for this ad. Imagine my surprise when my boss comes to me to show me who he had chosen. “What? That’s my girlfriend,” I said. He laughed and he says, “No way, we chose Khaya’s girlfriend for the ad! What are the chances?” The Lord works in casting ways it seems.

Chuck Norris’ birthday: Here are some Chuck Norris facts I wrote

I made up some Chuck Norris facts for this man’s birthday. I hope I don’t get roundhouse kicked for this.

Chuck Norris never says excuse me, he’s already excused.

When Danish cartoonists were given the choice to depict the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) or Chuck Norris, they took the safe option.

“I roundhouse kick, therefore I am.” Chuck Norris.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? Chuck Norris made the chicken.

Chuck Norris taught blacks how to dance.

Chuck Norris was the first man on the sun.

If Chuck Norris wrote a Chuck Norris fact, it would be the funniest.

Celebrities endorse Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris’ shadow glows in the dark.

Martina Navratilova, Mike Tyson, Kobe Bryant and Caster Semenya are all Chuck Norris’ illegitimate children.

Chuck Norris ended apartheid.

Mohamed Ali is not the greatest.

Brat Pitt begged Chuck Norris to impregnate Angelina Jolie for him.

Chuck Norris once roundhouse kicked himself just for the heck of it.

Bruce Lee kicked Chuck Norris’s ass in Way of the Dragon. Bruce Lee died mysteriously.

My thoughts on the victims and Jub Jub

Yesterday a tragic incident happened. South African hip-hop artist Jub Jub allegedly killed four teenagers due to negligent driving. This was not mere negligent driving, he was drag racing in the middle of a township, in Soweto. Anyone who knows anything about the township is that there are always people walking or trying to cross the street. Always. You can’t drive fast there, let alone race. What makes this incident even worse is the alleged drinking and drug taking.

These six children woke up in the morning to go school, a stepping-stone to futures they had envisioned for themselves. Their parents said goodbye to them in the morning, maybe some didn’t get the chance to because they had already gone to work. No parent wants to bury a child – especially of school going age. The death of a child is not a mere interruption. It is the sudden death of promise.

Many of us are sitting on our high horses judging Jub Jub and his friend. We all have every right to be angered by what happened, angry even at Jub Jub. DH Lawrence said it best when he said, “Anger is just, and pity is just, but judgment is never just.” Four children died an unnecessary death. Four families that should have been making lunch boxes tomorrow are planning lunch for a funeral. People have the right to be angry.

“You do not define anyone with your judgment. You only define yourself as someone who needs to judge.” Wayne Dyer. I am not qualified to pass judgment. What I will state is what I know was wrong, facts. He was wrong to speed. Racing in the middle of the township in the middle of the day with children walking back home from school was irresponsible. All these things while under the influence of alcohol and drugs is insane. That we all agree on. Calling him names now I am not so sure because it could have happened to anyone. I doubt any of us can say Jub Jub and his friend are glad this happened.

Before you judge someone else remember that you too have done something you are ashamed of.

And in all this, let us remember that there are grieving families, our prayers and attention should focus on them instead, not on a celebrity.

This picture for me hurts the most. The bags are so innocuous, yet they tell a story.

Why Winnie Mandela is wrong about Nelson Mandela

Winnie Madikizela-Mandela speaks as if it was not the ANC collective that made the decisions that caused her to complain about Nelson Mandela, her ex husband. She places all the blame squarely on his shoulders. She acts as if she was not part of the NEC that agreed to the principles that would lead to the formation a new South Africa. Apparently Nelson Mandela was a dictator who made every single decision by himself. Of course, that’s if what is reported is true.

I have always held Winnie Madikizela Mandela in the highest regard; I think most of us do despite what the media says about her. I couldn’t help but sympathise with her when former president Thabo Mbeki knocked her hat off her head when she arrived late for some ANC celebrations. I have not always agreed with her but I have always respected her struggle against oppression. I don’t know many people who would have been able to survive what she had to go through. Policemen barged down her doors as they pleased, humiliating her in front of her children. She has suffered untold humiliations. As much as Madiba was the symbol of oppression in jail, she was the symbol of resistance outside.

The mistake that Winnie Madikizela Mandela is making is that of approaching Nelson Mandela from the angle of a man who is incapable of doing wrong. It is as if she thought he was perfect and suddenly realised he wasn’t. Nelson Mandela puts this in perspective when he says of her, “She married a man who soon left her; that man became a myth; and then that myth returned home and proved to be just a man after all.” Perhaps she still sees him as a myth, a man who can do all things.

She tries to make him a mere man amongst the leaders of the ANC by the manner in which London’s Evening Standard claimed she criticised him. However she achieves the opposite of what she was aiming for – by blaming him she places him above the other leaders because she says he alone is to blame. If she listened carefully to what he has said repeatedly, “I must not be isolated from the collective who are responsible for the success.”

The first government had to achieve certain things, political liberation first. Try to avert any bloodshed that could possibly take place in the process of starting a new nation. It could not afford to be radical; radicalism has rarely led to stability anywhere. The second government’s job was to bring the masses to the economic front; it didn’t really achieve it by that much, and it certainly did bring large amounts of black people to the middle class but not enough. Sixteen years on black people’s spending power now exceeds that of white people. She points out correctly that the economy is still in white hands. The struggle continues.

She is quoted saying “I kept the movement alive,” a few sentences later she says, “You all must realise that Mandela was not the only man who suffered.” We realize that and Mandela himself says that Winnie suffered a lot more than he did and there are thousands who suffered more than he did for freedoms cause. If we look at what she said here she is claiming sole credit. “I kept the movement alive.” The ANC and the people kept the movement alive. If anything, the movement and the people kept them both alive. Both Mandela’s cannot claim credit, they were symbols that we couldn’t have done without. We needed both. There couldn’t be one without the other.

“This name Mandela is an albatross around the necks of my family. You all must realise that Mandela was not the only man who suffered. There were many others, hundreds who languished in prison and died. Many unsung and unknown heroes of the struggle, and there were others in the leadership too, like poor Steve Biko, who died of the beatings, horribly all alone. Mandela did go to prison and he went in there as a burning young revolutionary. But look what came out.”

Another mistake she is making is that people don’t change. She remembers an angry militant young man going to jail, a man who was also the founder of Mkhonto Wesizwe (MK), the military wing of the ANC. She thought she would meet the same fiery man but what walked out was a better man than the one who walked into prison, she didn’t know how to deal with him. He had an advantage in prison she didn’t have outside – the advantage of thinking in isolation, putting pieces together without being interrupted by the temptations of short-term goals to please the masses’ immediate needs. Nelson Mandela could put his emotions aside and think of what needed to be done for the greater good.

When we entered into a negotiated settlement we agreed to things that ensured the unity of the nation. No one was happy with the outcome, the hallmark of successful negotiations – each side felt cheated. “When you negotiate, you must be prepared to compromise.” Compromise basically means being happy with being unhappy about what you agree to. That is what negotiations were. No one came out the outright winner during CODESA.

He realised that sacrifices had to be made, she was thinking pay back. He came out a hero; she was painted as a villain after the Stompie incident. Their world-views couldn’t have been more different. He wanted a divorce, she didn’t. Now he was too good for her. It’s possible that these were the thoughts going in her head. I made him, his name survived because of me; he’d be nobody without me. This is how he thanks me? Of course no one can claim to know what was going on in her head, I am making uneducated speculation.

Winnie is completely wrong. She speaks as if Nelson Mandela negotiated by himself, as if he didn’t have a team to work with, a team that came up with ideas, proposed them to the NEC and then presented to the apartheid government. She blames him alone for the ills of the current state of the country. This reminds me a little of the ANC blaming all that is wrong on Thabo Mbeki and taking credit for all that’s gone well.

Winnie reminds me of a bit in the Bible when Moses went up the mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments, he was up there for a long time, weeks if my memory serves me right. When he came back the people had become impatient and they made a golden calf and worshiped it, the man Moses had left in charge, his brother Aaron, in order to appease the angry Israelites built the calf, upon descending to see this abomination Moses slammed the stone tablet and smashed it to pieces. Moses would occasionally call the Israelites the stiff-necked people because they were never happy, never satisfied, always complaining. They would say Egypt was better.

Now I am not saying that we shouldn’t complain when we see that things are not going the way they should be. Nelson Mandela could have done a lot of things better but he is the first one to admit that. He is a mere man. He didn’t lead South Africa alone. Is he beyond criticism? Of course not. He must be scrutinised and we should forever remember that he is not God. Having said that, I hope Winnie Madikizela Mandela didn’t say the things she is reported to have said.

Evening standard article: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23812947-how-nelson-mandela-betrayed-us-says-ex-wife-winnie.do

Beyonce the new Michael Jackson? Not a chance!

There is no doubt that Beyonce is supremely talented but the comparisons to Michael Jackson are premature. She is probably the best all rounder at the moment. She sings well, great performer, videos that consume popular culture and the works. She’s the total package. I am almost certain that there is no artist living that devotes as much time to perfecting their craft as much as she does. That was also MJ’s trick. He worked harder than anyone else, even when he no longer needed to.

But let’s get serious she’s no Michael Jackson. No one deserves the throne right now. She is not worthy. No one is. She is probably the closet thing to him at the moment. But 10 steps below – there lies her throne. Even that is debatable because others will ask what about Madonna, Britney, Justine, Gaga and more. No one debated whether MJ was king when he was Beyonce’s age.

When Michael Jackson walked into a room full of movie stars and musicians, they screamed. He is the only one whose groupies included celebrities. What has Beyonce contributed compared to MJ? Allow me to list just a portion of Michael Jackson’s contribution to music by the time he was Beyonce’s age:

1: The industry was a singles dominated industry when Thriller was released, after the success of the album everyone else suddenly realised the significance of albums. He transformed how the industry did business.

2:  MTV wouldn’t play black artists. After seeing the videos that MJ had produced, his record company called up MTV, told them that if they don’t play his songs they would remove all their artists from the channel. Thriller, Beat it and Bellie Jean became the channel’s most request music videos and the popularity of MTV exploded as a result. Michael Jackson made the channel; which is why MTV has an award named after him. He put blacks on MTV too. He was still 25.

3: In 1987 the Bad tour started and ended in 1989. The concerts were attended by more than four million people. It was the most successful in history. He reinvented concerts, they were no longer just musicians performing songs, he made them theatre.

5: Within a year of its release, Thriller became the biggest selling album in history.

6: The Thriller music video is preserved by the US Congress, it is deemed as “culturally significant” because it was the first music video that treated music video as an art form.
7: Thriller sold more than 110 million copies. That is a single album. It’s the biggest selling album of all time. All time. Four of his other albums rank among the world’s best-sellers.

8: Before MJ artists never paid attention to music video making. He turned them to an art form that has a story with a beginning, a middle and an ending. To this day music videos are done the same way he innovated. When his music videos premiered they became an international event. Beyonce, Usher, Justince Timberlake, Britney, Lady Gaga and many others are basically doing what he did, albeit, not as well because he was the original.

Time Magazine described Jackson’s influence in a 1984 as a “Star of records, radio, rock video. A one-man rescue team for the music business. A songwriter who sets the beat for a decade. A dancer with the fanciest feet on the street. A singer who cuts across all boundaries of taste and style and colour too.”

Jackson had created a pivotal turning point in the history of popular music “in that [his performance] marked the shift of emphasis from musical performance to visual presentation.

All this was by the time he was Beyonce’s age. Considering his achievements, Beyonce doesn’t deserve to sit on the throne. No one can claim the right to sit on it just yet.

I have not even factored in his achievements later on.
So, what has Beyonce innovated that she deserves to be on the throne? No way. She is on a throne somewhere below but no one sits on the throne of MJ.

I’ll leave you with this video by George Carlin, the late great American comedian on Michael Jackson

No true democracy can survive without a free press.

A free press needs a democracy to survive. One cannot survive without the other. The free press needs to prod the government to keep it in check, to irritate it and give information to its citizens. Its duty is not to protect the rulers, rather to save them from themselves in turn saving the nation.

The ANCYL’s attempt to blackmail a journalist is out of step for a democracy. According to the Daily Maverick’s Kevin Bloom, http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/article/2010-03-23-blog-campaign-against-ancyls-media-threats-goes-viral this is the reason journalists sent a letter to ANC secretary general Gedwe Mantashe, “The journalists’ complaint was that Shivambu had threatened them when they questioned the authenticity of a dossier he’d attempted to leak. The subject of the dossier? The private life of City Press reporter Dumisani Lubisi, who, you may also remember, was instrumental in exposing Youth League president Julius Malema’s various business interests.” This is unacceptable. This is not a protest for a free press, nor is it against the ANCYL, it is a protest for democracy.

In the words of Nelson Mandela, “A free press is one of the pillars of democracy.” He even went further to say, “A bad free press is preferable to technically good, subservient one.” Perhaps the ANCYL would do well to heed the words of this founder and former leader of this organization. A press that is easily intimidated into doing the bidding of the powerful does not deserve to call itself a press. What the YL fails to understand is that the press actually saves it from itself. Having said that, when those in power question journalists they should see it as a challenge to get better at what they do, safe guarding democracy.

One of the founding fathers of the United States of America, Thomas Jefferson once said that, “If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn’t hesitate to choose the latter.” Only insecure leaders would chose former. Men and woman who do not deserve the title leader. Bullying is not a sign of strength, bullying is the sign of an insecure school yard kid. Just because the ANCYL is called the “youth” doesn’t give it any right to act immaturely.

The press is not dangerous, only dangerous leaders find it dangerous. If you have something to hide, then by all means you have every reason to fear the free press.

Blog Roll

http://thoughtleader.co.za/siphohlongwane

http://rwrant.co.za

http://vocfm.co.za/blogs/munadia/

http://vocfm.co.za/blogs/shafiqmorton/

http://blogs.news24.com/needpoint

http://capetowngirl.co.za

http://thoughtleader.co.za/sentletsediakanyo

http://thoughtleader.co.za/davidjsmith

http://letterdash.com/one-eye-only

http://boyuninterrupted.blogspot.com

http://amandasevasti.com

http://blog.empyrean.co.za/

http://letterdash.com/brencro

http://6000.co.za

http://chrisroper.co.za

http://pieftw.com

http://hamishpillay.wordpress.com

http://memoirs4kimya.blogspot.com

http://thoughtleader.co.za/azadessa

http://watkykjy.co.za

http://fredhatman.co.za

http://thelifeanddeathchronicles.blogspot.com/

http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/common-dialogue/

http://www.clivesimpkins.blogs.com/

http://mashadutoit.wordpress.com

http://nicharalambous.com

http://sarocks.co.za

http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/stompies/

http://helenmoffett.book.co.za/blog/

http://01universe.blogspot.com

http://groundwork.worpress.com

http://iwrotethisforyou.me

http://fionasnyckers.book.co.za

http://attentiontodetail.wordpress.com

http://blogs.women24.com/editor

http://www.missmillib.blogspot.com

http://snowgoose.co.za

http://dreamfoundry.co.za

http://www.vanoodle.blogspot.com

http://www.exmi.co.za/.co.za

http://cat-dubai.blogspot.com

http://alistairfairweather.com

http://www.zanedickens.com

http://www.nickhuntdavis.com

http://guysa.blogspot.com

http://book.co.za

http://baldy.co.za

http://skinnylaminx.com

http://blogs.african-writing.com/zukiswa

http://www.mielie.wordpress.com

http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/gatherer/

http://thoughtleader.co.za/sarahbritten

http://stii.co.za

http://blogs.news24.com/FSB_AP

http://twistedkoeksuster.blogspot.com

http://whensmokegetsinyoureyes.blogspot.com/

http://trinklebean.wordpress.com

http://commentry.wordpress.com/

http://matthewbuckland.com

http://blogs.news24.com/colour-me-fran

http://gormendizer.co.za

http://khayav.com

If you want to learn how to tweet, learn from the Spartans

Spartans prided themselves in never using more than six words when one would do. This is why they would have been brilliant on Twitter. Each tweet has a maximum of 140 characters. This explains why Moammar Gadaffi is not on Twitter. You have to use as few words as possible when expressing, explaining and replying. You’d probably be killed for making a speech. It is the one place where less is truly more. Except of course those, according to Mail&Guardian columnist Chris Roper, who insist on doing this at the end of their sentences!!!!!!!!!

In the movie 300, the Spartans are completely misrepresented as a people who talk a whole lot more than they did. The monologues, the long inspirational speeches by Spartan King Leonidas before launching his pre-emptive defence against the Persian “god-king” Xerxes were counter-revolutionary. Had the Spartans been alive today in their true and original form, their movie critics would have assaulted it with verbal minimalism.

The people of Sparta were from a region called Laconia; as a result Athenians started calling anyone who spoke concisely as laconic. That is how we got the word laconic in the English language today. Although I shouldn’t really say “we” as English is my 5th language (I’m cheating because Xhosa, Zulu, Ndebele and Swati are cousins, but don’t tell anyone).

The year was 4BC. In case you don’t know what BC stands for, it doesn’t stand for Before Coke, it’s Before Christ. Anyway, after the warring Spartans won the battle of Thebes, the victorious general sent a message to his boss, we don’t know who the boss was, maybe their version of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will never know. As I was saying, the general sent a message, “Thebes is taken”. That seems concise to you right? Wrong! This is why you wouldn’t have survived there. The general receives a terse five-word lecture, “Taken would have been sufficient”. Ouch.

Sparta was always at war, later that very same century they were at war with Macedonia. This story happens to be my favourite one. The Macedonian army gathered outside the city state of Sparta, the leader of the Macedonian army, Philip II, father of Alexander the Great (you may never have heard of his lesser known brother, Alexander the Insignificant) sent a message to the city’s leaders: “You are advised to submit immediately. If I enter Laconia, I shall raze it to the ground.” What did the Spartans say? What would you have said? Cursing is not allowed, too easy. They sent the greatest one-word comeback of all time, ALL TIME! To add sulphur to injury, it was a two-letter-word reply: “If.”

(I sent a message a few moments ago on twitter asking people on Twitter to give me a shorter headline for my blog and Mel Bala, one of my favourites on Twitter said, “oh, please be sure to mention “Helen of Troy!” Ok, Mel. Mentioned.)

Another man known for his few words was American president Calvin Coolidge, he was even known as “Silent Cal”. I don’t know how he could have won an election in this day and age in which many words matter. Maybe if he ran against Obama today his taciturn style against the president’s wordy one he would have stood his own. A female guest at the White House whispered on Coolidge’s ear and said, “You must talk to me Mr President. I made a bet that I could get more than two words out of you”. The president replied, “You lose”.

So good people on Twitter, can we express ourselves more concisely than the people of the region of Laconia? Obviously, this blog is far too long considering the subject matter. Should have been a paragraph.

Follow me on Twitter but I won’t lead you anywhere

Window Seat, Shocking Erykah Badu music video

(Please read first then scroll down to the video. The video will make more sense that way.)

If you are a student of history you will recognize the voice at the beginning of the video. It is the voice of a radio newscaster from the day president Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. He introduces us to the video by telling us about the crowds in Dallas that day.

When I showed this video to a colleague she said a little annoyed to me, “Ok, Erykah, where is this going?” I told her to wait. Then as the video progresses she says, “No! No Erykha! No!” As if she can hear her.

This video was shot in Dallas, Texas, the same street president John F Kennedy was assassinated. In the video she starts to walk and removes her clothes including her bra and yes, her knickers. And then out of the blue we hear a gunshot and she collapses on the sidewalk. This is what she wrote on Twitter “”[S]hot guerilla style, no crew, one take, no closed set, no warning, two minutes, in downtown Dallas, then ran like hell… I was afraid. But I was ready.’”

The shot took about 2 minutes but the actual video is in slow mo and stretches on for the duration of the song, over 5 minutes.  Even before she starts taking her clothes off you sense some nervousness. You get the feeling that she’s saying to herself, “I’m scared to death but stuff it I’m doing it anyway.” They only had one shot at making the video. They had to make the most of it and it had to work.

@Questlove adds, “People were so stunned they forgot to break out camera phones.”

The video was directed by http://twitter.com/KareemJohnson

I liked the video. I hope it turns out to be a viral sensation.

Nelson Mandelas address to the nation after Chris Hani’s assassination

I am by no means comparing Chris Hani to Eugene Terreblanche. They are not of the same cloth by any stretch of the imagination. The point I am making here is that we need a unifier, not someone who will be given to rhetoric.

Address To The Nation By ANC President, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, On The Assassination Of Martin Thembisile (Chris) Hani

“Today, an unforgivable crime has been committed.

The calculated, cold-blooded murder of Chris Hani is not just a crime against a dearly beloved son of our soil. It is a crime against all the people of our country.

A man of passion, of unsurpassed courage has been cut down in the prime of his life.

Chris Hani is known to all of us, loved by millions, hated only by those who fear the truth.

We say to all South Africans, black and white, that day of truth will dawn.

Chris spent his life fighting for freedom, democracy and justice.

It was this passion for liberty that persuaded him, at an early age, to commit himself fully to the African National Congress and the South African Communist Party.

Chris Hani knew from personal experience the pain of deprivation and social inequality. An erudite scholar who could have chosen a less arduous path, he nonetheless selflessly chose the often thankless task of being a freedom fighter. He shared the trials and tribulations of three decades of exile. During that time he served the cause of the liberation movement with distinction, earning the respect and love of millions in our country.

His death demands that we pursue that cause with even greater determination.

We appeal to every religious service over this Easter Holiday to commemorate Chris Hani’s life and what he stood for.

Let Wednesday 14 April be a day on which, wherever we are, we hold memorial services in honour of one of the greatest freedom fighters this country has ever known.

We are a nation deeply wounded by callous, uncaring men who plot such heinous crimes with impunity.

The cries of our nation are heard from old men who bury their sons and daughters, wives who weep for their husbands, communities who endlessly bury young and old, infants and pregnant women.

This killing must stop.

Chris Hani championed the cause of peace, trudging to every corner Of South Africa calling for a spirit of tolerance among all our people.

We are a nation in mourning. Our pain and anger is real. Yet we must not permit ourselves to be provoked by those who seek to deny us the very freedom Chris Hani gave his life for.

Let us respond with dignity and in a disciplined fashion.

Let us observe April 14 in dignified memorial services and in accordance with the decisions of our leadership.

The date of Comrade Chris Hani’s funeral will be announced after full consultations with the family.

We shall lay to rest the mortal remains of Comrade Chris Hani in a manner befitting a hero of our people. No one will desecrate his memory by rash and irresponsible actions.

At this moment of unbounded grief for the whole country, our deepest sympathies go to Chris’s wife, Limpho, the children and the rest of the family.

The ANC dips it’s banner in salute to this outstanding son of Africa.”

Not quite Die Antwoord

In defense of Manni Pacquaio

Floyd “Money” Mayweather, Jr. wants Manny Pacquiao to undergo drug tests before they fight. It is a legitimate request and all seems reasonable on the surface. But nothing is ever just on the surface when two competitive fighter are about to square off in the ring. It is not as simple as most people want to make it appear. This is not even about Mayweather believing that Pacquaio is on drugs, it’s just a matter of getting under his skin. It’s a mind game. He is famous for these games.

Boxing rules only mandate that boxers should test after the fight. They are not mandatory before one, so why should Mayweather be allowed to bend rules? Can Pacquaio create his own too? Like, have a test during the match for example?

This begs the question, why would Pacquiao, a world champion succumb to the demands of a former champion and challenger? If I were a champion I would view that as nothing but disrespect if I decided to bend to the will of a challenger.  Thus, the challenger has won the fight before they have even stepped into the ring. 90% of a boxing fight is won outside the ring.

The main reason Mayweather wants these drug tests to be conducted is because Pacquiao went from 106 to 147 pounds. Funny enough though, Mayweather went from 106 to 154 pounds. Is this Mayweather telling us indirectly that he took drugs to gain the weight?

Roach, Pacman’s trainer says, “There’s no validation in that accusation because he’s never been tested positive. He’s been tested in every title fight and has passed every time. Just because he went from 106 lbs. to 147 lbs., does that mean he is on steroids?” Roach questioned, “Floyd Mayweather, Jr. went from 106 to 154 lbs., does that mean he is on steroids too? That’s bull—t!”

That’s all folks.

Mbeki’s AIDS stance explained brilliantly (Mbeki and the Big disease)

By David Kibuuka

So where does one begin?13 years into the democracy and uncertainty about the future is at an all time high but rest assured folks things are nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be.

Okay, where do we begin? Well let’s start at the top. Thabo Mbeki, esteemed President of the Republic of South Africa . He’s not often here which seemed like a bit of a joke at first but now it seems to have comeback to bite him in the backside.Thabo and HIV. On the face of it he did terribly but a more careful analysis of the situation may reveal that old Thabo is not as empty headed as one would believe. Oh let it be said now that Thabo has a very dictatorial style ala “its may way or the highway!” Anyway let’s examine HIV.

HIV first appears on the radar in the early eighties as a “homosexual disease” or so they thought. Alarm in the gay community. Not so much alarm in the heterosexual community so nobody really cares. Then it starts to affect heterosexuals. The general population in the first world are fairly alarmed but quite informed and since most people don’t know or didn’t know of anyone dying first hand its all a bit of a myth. Meanwhile the big pharmaceutical companies are licking their lips because a disease that is transmitted sexually, kills you and has no cure is the jackpot for them. Everybody has sex so huge amounts of people will get this disease, need treatment and make the drug companies stinking rich. Hallelujah!

So the companies start to pour billions of dollars into developing a cure based on a per person spread. For example if 3 billion people get it then they sell a cure or treatment for 20 dollars per person. That’s just an example. Then what happens?

Due to education, tradition, custom or who knows what, nobody in the main markets, that is USA , Canada , Western Europe , Japan , the Arab countries and Australia get the disease. When I say nobody gets it I mean nowhere near the huge numbers predicted by the companies when they started pouring billions of dollars into the development of a cure/treatment. Obviously some people have the disease in these territories.

Meanwhile in Africa and the poorer parts of Asia the disease is going wild. Everyone is getting it. Everybody died in Uganda . But the pharmaceutical companies can’t make any money from these markets because neither the people nor the governments have any money to pay for the treatments. The infected people in these regions die horrible deaths. Yes some aid was sent but for all intents and purposes it was misery all around. Then in the late eighties and early nineties South Africa slowly moves towards democracy, the borders open up and the disease heads southwards into SA.

At this point the big multinational (read US ) companies are crying crocodile tears because they invested all this money in trying to find treatments and a cure for this disease but nobody who has any money gets infected.

Then South Africans start to get infected. The drug companies heave a sigh of relief. South Africans have money or a least their government has money so the companies can sell their treatments to South Africans and make their money back. Smiles all around in the pharmaceutical company boardrooms. I will be able to buy that Bentley after all says the CEO”(It must be pointed out though that technically at the start of the new South Africa the country was bankrupt).

It’s around this time that the companies start to talk to Thabo. Thabo knows full well that HIV causes AIDS. They have high powered negotiations in fancy hotels in sophisticated parts of the world .Thabo wants the drugs. The companies want to sell them. Everything should be sweet. Only problem is the price.

Since South Africa is for all intents and purposes the only country the companies can sell too and get the money they invested back they want South Africa to pay exorbitant prices. South Africa is their only customer.

Imagine it like this for clarification.

A hamburger shop (the pharmaceutical companies) predicts that on Saturday afternoon it’s going to be very busy. They make 100 hamburgers in anticipation on Saturday morning. They have already paid the butcher for the meat and paid the staff at the shop etc, etc so they need to sell 100 burgers. Saturday afternoon arrives and nobody comes to the shop (i.e. none of the countries come to buy burgers).Then one customer comes in (South Africa) Instead of selling him a burger at R10 they try to sell it to him at R1000 because he has got to make up the shortfall since nobody else came to buy burgers. Hope its clear.

The pharmaceutical company bosses and Thabo are sitting in a swanky London hotel sipping cognac. Thabo lives in London so its easier for them to meet there. So now you’ll recall that when we first heard about HIV in South Africa the treatment was very costly, like R5500 a month. The companies want Thabo to pay this much per person.Thabo asks Trevor, who is sitting next to him, to do the calculations. Trevor’s in London to watch a test match between the All Blacks and England . He’s a die hard supporter of the Men In Black. Luckily he has a pocket calculator on him so he pulls it out and does the calculations. Trevor tells Thabo that if South Africa pays that much per person it will bankrupt the country. Thabo tells the companies he won’t buy the drugs at that price. The companies threaten Thabo telling him that he has no choice but to buy the drugs because if his population gets wind of the fact that he won’t pay to “save lives” he will lose power. Thabo refuses to be strong armed and tells them to lower the price. They refuse, they need to make their money back. Thabo says if that’s the price then he’s not hungry. He takes a last big swig of the cognac, stands up and excuses himself saying Sierra Leone needs him. Trevor follows but not to Sierra Leone .

Meanwhile the companies go to Bush who is on a golf course on holiday and they tell him that Thabo is not co-operating. Bush swings the club and turns to the companies. They tell him that if someone doesn’t buy their drugs they will be forced to fire a whole lot of people, which would increase unemployment. Although the number of people fired would be negligible compared to the whole population this would be terrible PR for the Bush administration. They also say they won’t be able to pay their taxes because they made no money. This gets Bush’s attention because he loves taxes. He sits down, wipes his brow and has a sip of lemonade.” Man I’d kill for a beer but you know how it is.” He thinks for a while then gets and walks to his ball and gets ready to take a swing. They watch him.

He shouts back as he lifts the club. ”You guys didn’t push Thabo hard enough. Call his bluff fellas. Tell the people of Nigeria that their president refuses to buy these life saving drugs for them and see how they’ll rebel. They’ll burn Zanzibar down and burn Thabo with it; you know how these Africans are. Call his bluff man. He’s a dictator and he doesn’t wanna lose power”. Thwack, he hits the ball.

The companies go back to Thabo.

Ok, Ok they have a plan. The thing is this is a negotiation you’ve got to be flexible. They say they won’t be greedy.R1000 of the R5000 was for bonuses for them to buy private jets and Ferraris. They’ll they forgo that and charge R4000 per person. This is the same as the hamburger seller saying you can buy a burger for R800.Thabo says no. They say” But you need the burger, you’re hungry”. Thabo says he won’t buy a burger for R800, it will bankrupt him (the country).They say he has no choice. This goes on until the companies say that they’ll sell the drugs for R2200.Thabo says this is still too expensive. The companies start to fume now. They tell Thabo they are doing him a favour and he is unappreciative and they reckon they’ll just go to the South African population and explain that Thabo does not value lives .He’ll be overthrown or resign due to pressure; another guy will come into power and probably buy the drugs for R5000 per person. That Leon guy he’s cool or that Zuma guy. He’s got a cool name and 99% of people with cool names are cool people.

Thabo won’t budge. Economically it doesn’t make sense to buy these drugs at this cost. The people who are getting this disease are not exactly CEO’s and actuaries. They are the lower classes who don’t generate enough to make it economically viable to pay for these exorbitant amounts. Socially and morally it makes sense but economically it doesn’t at least not at face value. Crude and sad but true.

What does Thabo the famous chess player do now? He makes one of the boldest political moves in modern history. He tells his population that “HIV doesn’t cause Aids. Pause. The population believes him, or a huge segment of it does. Think about it. They want Mbeki out now with all this drama with Jacob but no-one wanted him out when he made this crazy statement except the liberals like the DA. The companies are in trouble. What do they do now? Any normal population would fire Thabo for saying this crazy stuff. Thabo says poverty cause AIDS not HIV. Same as saying that eating before you come to a restaurant cures hunger, the burger that you buy at the shop won’t cure hunger.

The companies can’t sell the drugs to the South African government now. Basically their only customer left the shop without buying anything. Talk about bad customer service. They go back to Bush who is shooting ducks on his ranch .The say they are gonna have to fire people and this would be bad PR for Bush’s administration. Bush says “You guys said that already, what? Do you think I’m an idiot?” They stare at him blankly then roll their eyes not wanting to answer the question. Bush shoots a deer instead of a duck but says he was aiming for it. He then thinks hard. Nothing comes to mind.

One of Bush’s people hatches a plan. They’ll donate 15 billion dollars to the fight against HIV in Africa . What this means in non-political speak is that they will buy 15 billion dollars worth of drugs from the crying companies (such babies) thus saving them and the companies will basically donate the drugs to Africa. Bush gets good PR and taxes, companies get their money back and Africans get HIV treatment. Bush is glad he thought of this plan.

So now in South Africa you can go on ARVs at a government hospital for a minimal amount, nowhere near the huge amounts from the old days. If they really thought that HIV didn’t cause Aids there’s no way they’d be giving away ARVs at government hospitals. This is a dictatorship after all. Shrewd move Thabo, shrewd move. One problem thou is the Health Minister who does not understand the nuances of international business and politics. She genuinely believes garlic can cure AIDS. Please whisper the truth into her ear Thabo.

Thabo the chess player came through. Sadly many people had to die while all this political and business maneuvering happened.

It’s difficult being the president of a country. Very difficult!

David Kibuuka is a writer and comedian.

He holds a Honours degree in Insurance and Finance from the University of the Witwaterand

Ride – Ciara feat Ludacris

All I can about this video is Yho! Yho! Yho!

Should we reply before the RT or after on Twitter?

When retweeting and then replying to a tweet at the same time, where should one write their response? Before or after the RT? This is an age-old debate that has raged for some time. In fact it has not even raged, it’s been completely ignored. People are doing their own thing. They’ve turned this into a digital jungle, a lawless outback. Well, that must stop.

I believe that we need a standardized approach. I’m tired of not know where to read. Some people enclose their responses with brackets, others with stars and bullets points, all these people do this after the RT. I don’t like it. Not one bit.

Since no one is willing to go balls to the wall and say what should be done I’ll do it. No, I’m not asking, I’m saying this is how it should be done. They lied to you and said there is democracy on the Internet. It’s a dictatorship. Do you think Google, Apple and Facebook ask you first what they should do first? No! They just do whatever the hell they want. Steve Jobs never asked if we wanted copy and paste and forwarding on the original iPhone. He just did it. Like Nike. Then when Facebook wants to make changes they just make them. Welcome to Khaya the dic(k)tatorship people!  In fact, just a few days ago Apple made Ellen apologise for making a spoof ad about the iPhone.

I must admit that I am not prone to dictator tendencies, which explains why I am not yet a billionaire. I am in the process of developing and enhancing this skill. As a learner dictator I went on Twitter and asked the following question, “What should a standardised reply to an RT be? Before or after the RT?”

The responses were an overwhelming “Before the RT”. Over 75% agreed. I am an advocate of the response before the RT as well. I will now give you my reasons (See? This is why I am not a dictator, I’m busy giving you reasons when I should just tell you what to do).

I will give you an example of the oldest form of electronic correspondence, email. When you respond to email, the response is never below the original email. We all know this. If your friend (provided you have friends) sends you an email correspondence he or she had with someone else, you read from bottom up.  I know some smarty-pants, or to paraphrase Julius Malema, some smarty-trousers will say no but that’s different. Well it’s not. And that’s that.

Let me demonstrate a couple of responses I got after asking the question.

KailzLubelwana Definately b4. Makes more sense when reading …RT @khayadlanga: What should a standardised reply to an RT be? Before or after the RT?

@Sentletse Twitter protocol dictates that it’s before “RT” @khayadlanga: What should a standardised reply to an RT be? Before or after the RT?

Besides the brackets, the stars and dots waste precious characters. I have spoken.

Now follow me and retweet this article!  http://twitter.com/khayadlanga

Hilarious Thabo Mbeki impersonator

Impi! Halirious Wimpy ad

Our latest ad for Wimpy at MetropolitanRepublic. Funny if I say so myself.

Aretha Franklin singing Mariah Carey’s Touch My Body, priceless

Thabo Mbeki’s Africa Day Lecture “Investing in Thought Leaders for Africa’s Renewal”

MAY 27, 2010.

Mr THABO MBEKI

Ten years ago, in the year 2000 marking the close of the 20th century, the World Bank published a Report provocatively entitled – Can Africa Claim the 21st Century?

Seeking to answer this question, the Report said:

“The question of whether Sub‐Saharan Africa can claim the 21st century is complex and provocative…Our central message is: Yes, Africa can claim the new century. But this is a qualified yes, conditional on Africa’s ability ‐ aided by its development partners ‐ to overcome the development traps that kept it confined to a vicious cycle of underdevelopment, conflict, and untold human suffering for most of the 20th century.”

In their Preface the authors said: “This report proposes strategies for ushering in

self‐reinforcing processes of economic, political, and social development. Progress is crucial on four fronts:

· Improving governance and resolving conflict.

· Investing in people.

· Increasing competitiveness and diversifying economies.

· Reducing aid dependence and strengthening partnerships…

They went on to say:

“Claiming the future involves enormous challenges ‐ not least of which is resolving theproblems of the past. Much of Africa’s recent economic history can be seen as a process of marginalisation ‐ first of people, then of governments. Reversing this process requires better accountability, balanced by economic empowerment of civic society ‐ including women and the poor ‐ and firms relative to governments, and of aid recipients relative to donors. Without this shift in power and accountability, it will be difficult to offer the incentives Africa needs to accelerate development and break free of poverty.”

It is probably true that all these World Bank observations are in themselves correct and unexceptionable. However, notable by its absence in these observations is an element I consider to be of vitalimportance if Africa is to Claim the 21st Century – the need for Africa to recapture the intellectual space to define its future, and therefore the imperative to develop its intellectual capital!

This is the first point I would like to make concerning what we need to do to ensure that we claim the 21st Century. The Lecture Series we begin today as the Vice Chancellor has just said, sponsored by the Thabo Mbeki Leadership Institute, a joint initiative by the University of South Africa and the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, is dedicated to the African Renaissance and also serves to celebrate Africa Day.

The tasks we continue to confront in this regard were identified even as the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was established in 1963. In this context, this is what Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia said when he opened the Conference which established the OAU: “We stand today on the stage of world affairs, before the audience of world opinion. We have come together to assert our role in the direction of world affairs and to discharge our duty to the great continent whose two hundred and fifty million people we lead…The task on which we have embarked, the making of Africa will not wait. We must act, to shape and mould the future and leave our imprint on events as they pass into history.

And he said:

“We seek, at this meeting, to determine whither we are going and to chart the course of our destiny. It is no less important that we know whence we came. An awareness of our past is essential to the establishment of our personality and our identity as Africans…

He further said:

“Thousands of years ago, civilisations flourished in Africa which suffer not at all by

comparison with those of other continents. In those centuries, Africans were politically free and economically independent. Their social patterns were their own and their cultures truly indigenous. “The obscurity which enshrouds the centuries which elapsed between those earliest days and the rediscovery of Africa are being gradually dispersed. What is certain is that during those long years Africans were born, lived and died. Men on other parts of this earth occupied themselves with their own concerns and, in their conceit, proclaimed that the world began and ended at their horizons. All unknown to them, Africa developed in its own pattern, growing in its own life and, in the Nineteenth Century, finally re‐emerged into the world’s consciousness.”

Reading these words today, there can be no doubt about the answer those who had gathered in Addis Ababa in 1963 would have given if they had been asked the question – Can Africa Claim the 21st Century? The critical importance of the awareness of our past and its relevance to the establishment of our personality and our identity as Africans was identified by the very earliest among our own modern

intelligentsia, a hundred years before Haile Selassie addressed the African political leaders assembled in Addis Ababa in 1963.

In August 1862, the Rev Tiyo Soga, educated at the Lovedale Institution in the Eastern Cape and the University of Glasgow in Scotland, where he trained in theology, started publishing what I believe was the first African newspaper in our country, managed and edited by Africans, called Indaba (News). In his editorial comment in the first edition of the paper, Tiyo Soga wrote: “I see this newspaper as a secure container that will preserve our history, our stories, our wisdom. The deeds of the nation are worth more than our cattle herds, money and even food. Let the elderly pour their knowledge into this container. Let all our stories, folk and fairy

tales, traditional views, and everything that was ever seen, heard, done, and all customs, let them be reported and kept in the national container. “Did we not form nations in the past? Did we not have our traditional leaders? What has happened to the wisdom of these leaders? Did we not have poets? Where is their poetry?

Was there no witchcraft in the past? Did we not fight wars? Who were the heroes? Where is the distinctive regalia of the royal regiment?

“Did we not hunt? Why was the meat of the chest of the rhino and the buffalo reserved for royalty? Where are the people to teach us our history, our knowledge and our wisdom? Let even the spirit of the departed return to bless us with the great gift of our heritage, which we must preserve!” Tiyo Soga wrote these words sixteen years before the end of the last colonial war to subjugate the indigenous people in the Cape Province. He had seen that despite the continuing fierce resistance of the Africans, colonialism was bound to emerge victorious. To guarantee its victory it had started and was determined to wipe out the history, the customs, the self‐worth, the identity and dignity of the African oppressed.

Soga knew that if this was allowed to happen, it would break the will of the colonised to continue the struggle to achieve their liberation, hence his call:

“Let even the spirit of the departed return to bless us with the great gift of our heritage, which we must preserve!”

Confirming that what he had in mind was the ultimate liberation of Africa, in a May 11, 1865 article in the King William’s Town Gazette and Kaffrarian Banner, entitled “What Is the Destiny of the Kaffir Race”, Tiyo Soga wrote:

“Africa was of God given to the race of Ham. I find the Negro from the days of the old

Assyrians downwards, keeping his ‘individuality’ and ‘distinctiveness’, amid the wreck of empires, and the revolution of ages. . . I find him enslaved…I find him in this condition for many a day ‐ in the West Indian Islands, in Northern and Southern America, and in the South American Colonies of Spain and Portugal. Until the Negro is doomed against all history and experience ‐ until his God‐given inheritance of Africa has been taken finally from him, I shall never believe in the total extinction of his brethren along the southern limits of the land of Ham.”

Important contemporary members of the African intelligentsia have also understood the challenges Tiyo Soga posed and their responsibility in this regard. For example the Ghanaian novelist and thinker, Ayi Kwei Armah, has said: “We need to regain knowledge of ourselves, the something that we are. To do that we have first of all to end the addiction to the poisons that put us to sleep. Secondly, we need to cultivate healing values that will help us remake ourselves and then remake the universe…

“‘What is our history?’ (Cheik Anta Diop) spent a lot of time answering the question

because…there was a time, not long ago, when the idea itself of Africans having a history was considered unsound, academically wrong. Now his answer was, ‘Not only do we have a history, we are the root of humanity; we were there at the beginning. That is to say that all human beings are kin to us, whether they recognize that or not…

“He also said that we are at the root of civilisation. This is another area from which we had been pushed…He learned to read the records of ancient Egypt before he was able to assert: ‘No, you people are lying’… “Now for centuries, we have been organised according to principles that are completely alien to us; principles of profit and advantage. The greatest African values are principles of justice, balance, reciprocity, which the ancient Egyptians called Maat. You will not find these principles at work in the great institutions of the modern world…

“We are people who have suffered from the search for profit. People have come to Africa to buy people, human beings. There are certain resources that should never be sold. If African values were on top of our existence, we would never sell land, we would never sell water, we wouldn’t sell the air, the sun, and we wouldn’t sell human beings. But we did, and in order to recover our values we have to go back and know what they are and find ways of affirming them against all the power of the destroyers.”

Another celebrated African intellectual, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, drew attention to the responsibility of the African intelligentsia to play its role in ‘the making of Africa’.

When he spoke in 2003 at a conference to mark the 30th anniversary of the establishment of CODESRIA, the Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa, he said:

“Despite her vast natural and human resources, indeed despite the fact that Africa has always provided, albeit unwillingly, resources that have fuelled capitalist modernity to its current stage of globalization, Africa gets the rawest deal. This is obvious in the areas of economic and political power. But this is also reflected in the production and consumption of information and knowledge. As in the political and economic fields, Africa has been a player in the production of knowledge.

“The increase in universities and research centres, though with often shrinking resources, have produced great African producers of knowledge in all fields such that brilliant sons and daughters of Africa are to be found in all the universities in the world…

“CODESRIA is reflective of the vitality of intellectual production in Africa and by Africans all over the world. “Has this vitality resulted in the enhancement of a scientific and democratic intellectual culture? Are African intellectuals and their production really connected to the continent? Even from a cursory glance at the situation it is clear that there is a discrepancy between the quality and quantity of this production of knowledge and the quality and quantity of its consumption by the general populace. Ours has been a case of trickle‐down‐knowledge, a variation of the theory of trickle‐down economics, a character of capitalist modernity, reflected more particularly in its colonial manifestation, which of course is the root base of modern education in Africa. And here I am talking of social production and consumption of knowledge and information in the whole realm of thought, from the literary to the scientific.

Since our very mandate as African producers of knowledge is to connect with the continent, it behoves us to continually re‐examine our entire colonial heritage, which includes the theory and practice of trickle‐down knowledge. This means in effect our having to continually examine our relationship to European memory in the organisation of knowledge.”

Thus did Ngugi, as did Armah, and Tiyo Soga before them, challenge the African intelligentsia to understand that their very mandate as African producers of knowledge is to connect with the continent, precisely to act as a motive force for the renaissance of Africa. From this surely it must follow that one of the tasks of this renaissance, which would enable us to give a positive reply to the question – Can Africa Claim the 21st Century? – must be the cultivation and nurturing of an African intelligentsia which understands its mandate in the same way that Ngugi understands the mandate of the African producers of knowledge.

I believe that in this regard the African intelligentsia has to understand that it has to carry out a veritable revolution along the entirety of what we might call the knowledge value chain. It must therefore address in a revolutionary manner the integrated continuum described by:

· Analysis of African reality and the global context within which our Continent exists and pursues its objectives;

· The policies relevant to the renaissance of Africa that would seek to transform the reality discovered through analysis;

· The politics Africa that needs to translate these policies into the required transformative programmes; and,

· The institutions that must be put in place to drive the process towards the renaissance of Africa.

I am certain that when it proceeds in this manner, seeking both to understand our reality and to change it, our intelligentsia will rediscover its mission as a vital agent of change, obliged critically to re‐examine the plethora of ideas emanating from elsewhere about our condition and our future, including what have become standard prescriptions about such matters as the democratic construct,

the role of the state and civil society, good governance, the market economy, and Africa’s relations with the rest of the world.

Thus should we depend on our intelligentsia as our educators and no longer mere conveyor belts of knowledge generated by others outside our Continent about ourselves and what we need to do to change our reality. One of the urgent contemporary tasks that confronts these African producers of knowledge is to understand the meaning of the global economic crisis to the African continent and what the continent needs to do ‘to overcome the development traps that kept it confined to a vicious cycle of underdevelopment, conflict, and untold human suffering for most of the 20th century’, as the World Bank had said in 2000.

The second major point I would like to make with regard to Africa’s challenge to claim the 21^st Century is that the Continent has to take the necessary steps to ensure that it occupies its rightful place within the global community of nations, bearing in mind the ineluctable process of globalisation. This means that Africa must, practically, regain its right to determine its destiny and use this right to achieve the objective of the all‐round upliftment of the African masses. In June 2000 we attended the meeting of the European Council, the EU Summit Meeting, held in Feira in Portugal.

The central objective of our mission at this meeting was to mobilise the EU to support what ultimately became the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, NEPAD. Immediately prior to our interaction with the EU Heads of State and Government we held discussions with the leadership of the European Commission.

These leaders of the EU Commission surprised us with an unexpected message about the attitude of the EU towards Africa.

In essence they warned us that the EU did not have any strategic perspective relating to Africa, as it did with other areas of the world such as East and Central Europe, the Middle East, Asia and the United States.

In short, in their view the EU did not consider Africa to be of such importance to its future that it was compelled to place the continent within a conscious and deliberate strategic framework.

The EU knew that willy‐nilly, i.e. whether it liked this or otherwise, Africa would continue to provide Europe with raw materials and serve as a market for its products. Beyond this, the continent had no possibility to act in a manner that would threaten Europe’s interests. We therefore understood that in terms of the advice we received, the prevalent view among important sections of the European leadership, even sub‐consciously, was that contrary to the situation with regard to other regions in the world, the relationship between Africa and Europe did not merit any purposeful strategic reflection on the part of the EU.

This communicated the very stark message to us that for Africa to assume its rightful place among the community of nations, especially in relationship to the developed countries, she had to demonstrate in theory and practice that she was a strategic player in the ordering of human affairs, globally. Thus would we defeat the pernicious view that Africa was but a hapless appendage to the rest of humanity, condemned to survival as an object of pity and benevolent charity, and contempt, and the actions that derive from this perspective.

We took this important advice into account when we engaged the EU Heads of State and Government, determined to convince them that we had not come to them as supplicants but as partners they needed in their own interest. In the result, the Final Communiqué of the European Council said:

“The European Council, agreeing that the challenges facing the African continent require extraordinary and sustained efforts by the countries of Africa helped by strong international engagement and cooperation, reaffirmed its willingness to continue to support measures aimed at rapid economic growth and sustainable development. This will only be possible in a proper environment of peace, democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law.”

Understanding the strategic imperative facing the EU, the then President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, said in 2003:

“The Africans are not asking Europe or the US for charity. What I hear from my African colleagues is a clear appeal to the rich countries to put policies in place that will allow Africa’s peoples to take their destiny in their own hands.”

In this regard, in a March 31, 2001 Address at the Third African Renaissance Festival in Durban, I said:

“(The) response (of the EU) to the imperatives Africa faces as part of the global hinterland, are driven by considerations of conscience and guilt rather than fundamental necessities to which it must respond, in its own strategic interest.”

I then said that to respond to this:

“It is necessary that the peoples of Africa gain the conviction that they are not, and must not be wards of benevolent guardians, but instruments of their own sustained upliftment. “Critical to this is the knowledge by these peoples that they have a unique and valuable contribution to make to the advancement of human civilisation, that…Africa has a strategic place in the global community.”

In this regard, the founding Framework Document of NEPAD said:

“Africa’s place in the global community is defined by the fact that the continent is an

indispensable resource base that has served all humanity for so many centuries. These resources can be broken down into the following components:

Component I: The rich complex of mineral, oil and gas deposits, the flora and fauna, and the wide unspoiled natural habitat, which provide the basis for mining, agriculture, tourism and industrial development;

Component II: The ecological lung provided by the continent’s rainforests, and the minimal presence of emissions and effluents that are harmful to the environment, a global public good that benefits all humankind;

Component III: The paleontological and archaeological sites containing evidence of the origins of the earth, life and the human race, and the natural habitats containing a wide variety of flora and fauna, unique animal species and the open uninhabited spaces that are a feature of the continent; and

Component IV: The richness of Africa’s culture and its contribution to the variety of the cultures of the global community. “The first component is the one with which the world is most familiar. The second component has only come to the fore recently, as humanity came to understand the critical importance of environmental issues. The third component is also now coming into its own, emerging as a matter of concern not only to a narrow field of science or of interest only to museums and their curators. The fourth component represents the creativity of African people, which in many important ways remains underexploited and underdeveloped.

There are at least two other elements we can add to the four components mentioned by NEPAD. One of these is that over the years Africa has exported significant numbers of qualified professionals to the developed world, who have and are contributing in important ways to the further socioeconomic development of these countries.

The second relates to what certainly the Europeans consider to be a threat – illegal migration from Africa and elsewhere. The fact of the matter is that as long as our Continent remains mired in poverty, so long will many of our people leave and try to enter and stay in Europe regardless of steps that might be taken to stop this human flow.

This makes the point that even if some Europeans sustain the view that they do not need a strategic perspective relating to Africa, the illegal African migration they consider to be a threat obliges them to treat Africa as a partner of one kind or another. For half‐a‐millennium Africa had been treated especially by many in the white world as part of their patrimony which they could exploit and dispose of as they wished. Even during the period after the independence of the majority of African countries, the Continent has had to live with the reality of the system of neo‐colonialism which perpetuated Africa’s dependence.

Inter alia, it was this history which made it possible for some Europeans to convince themselves that they had no need to define a strategic relationship between themselves and our Continent. The end of the Cold War created the possibility for our Continent finally to reclaim its right to determine its destiny and, among other things, define its relations with the rest of the world.

NEPAD was adopted at the last Assembly of OAU Heads of State and Government which was held in Lusaka, Zambia in 2001. The partnerships we visualised as we worked on NEPAD were:

· A mutually beneficial partnership among ourselves as Africans; and,

· A mutually beneficial partnership between Africa and the rest of the world.

I am convinced that one of the greatest achievements of the African continent and its organisations, the OAU and the AU, during the first decade of the 21st century, was the acceptance of NEPAD and its partner African Peer Review Mechanism, the APRM, by the rest of the world as the defining programme which should inform the relations of the Continent with the rest of the international community.

In this regard:

In September and December 2002, speaking for the world community of nations, the UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration and Resolution which said respectively:

“We affirm that international support for the implementation of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development is essential…(We urge) the international community and the United Nations system to organise support for African countries in accordance with the principles, objectives and priorities of the New Partnership in the new spirit of partnership.”

The Declaration adopted at the first Africa‐EU Summit Meeting after the birth of NEPAD, held in Lisbon in 2007, said:

“In recognition of our ambitions, and of all that we share today and have shared in the past, we are resolved to build a new (EU‐Africa) strategic political partnership for the future, overcoming the traditional donor‐recipient relationship and building on common values and goals in our pursuit of peace and stability, democracy and rule of law, progress and development. We will develop this partnership of equals, based on the effective engagement of our societies…”

Earlier, in 2002, in their Africa Action Plan the G8 had said:

“We, the Heads of State and Government of eight major industrialised democracies and the Representatives of the European Union, meeting with African Leaders at Kananaskis, welcome the initiative taken by African States in adopting the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)…. We accept the invitation from African Leaders, extended first at Genoa last July and reaffirmed in the NEPAD, to build a new partnership between the countries of Africa and our own, based on mutual responsibility and respect.”

Addressing the Summit Meeting of the Forum for China‐Africa Cooperation in 2006, Chinese President Hu Jintao said: “China values its friendship with Africa. To strengthen unity and cooperation with Africa is a key principle guiding China’s foreign policy. China will continue to support Africa in implementing the New Partnership for Africa’s Development and in its effort to strengthen itself through unity, achieve peace and stability and economic revitalisation in the region and raise its international standing.”

When he spoke in our country on January 9, 2001, the then Prime Minister of Japan, Yoshiro Mori, conveyed his clear understanding of Africa’s strategic place in the world when he said: “In this age of globalisation, as the world becomes increasingly unified, it would be unthinkable to talk about “the world of tomorrow” without considering sub‐Saharan Africa…If it can overcome the difficulties it faces and open the way toward a bright future, Africa will probably become the driving force behind vibrant development of human society in the 21^st Century…

“On the other hand, if the problems of Africa are neglected and one fourth of the world’s nations remain alienated, there is no reason that the world community should be able to prosper and maintain stability. Indeed, there will be no stability and prosperity in the world in the 21st Century unless the problems of Africa are resolved.” I believe that we should agree with Yoshiro Mori that “there will be no stability and prosperity in the world in the 21st Century unless the problems of Africa are resolved.”

The current global economic and financial crisis has thrown into very sharp relief the important question – how should the international community act to respond to the challenge posed by Yoshiro Mori! In this context it had seemed to be self‐evident that because they are poor, Africans would be among those who would suffer most from the effects of this crisis, and therefore that any meaningful response to the crisis would pay particular attention to Africa.

Our hopes were raised when the April 2, 2009 London G20 Summit Meeting Communiqué said: “We recognise that the current crisis has a disproportionate impact on the vulnerable in the poorest countries and recognise our collective responsibility to mitigate the social impact of the crisis to minimise long‐lasting damage to global potential.”

Earlier we spoke about the adoption by the G8 of the Africa Action Plan in 2002, which constituted a detailed response to support the objectives contained in the NEPAD programme. The reality is that the G8 Africa Action Plan constitutes the only extant and comprehensive framework defining an equitable partnership between Africa and the developed world. The tragedy is that in practical terms this Action Plan has fallen by the wayside. The G20 has now replaced the G8, which, despite its obvious limitations, signifies an important step forward towards the democratisation of the system of global economic governance.

Despite taking some welcome measures to assist Africa and the developing world to mitigate the effects of the global economic crisis, the G20 has not adopted the Africa Action Plan. It therefore does not have an integrated programme to respond to Africa’s development challenges. As recently as last month, on April 23, in their Communiqué issued after their meeting in Washington D.C., the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors said:

“We will ask the World Bank to advise us on progress in promoting development and poverty reduction as part of rebalancing of global growth.” What all this means is that in its programmes relating to the global economic crisis the developed world has not treated the response to the challenges of Africa’s development as one of its strategic tasks.

In a March 2009 paper on “Africa and the Global Financial Crisis” the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa discussed the importance of the stimulus packages put in place by the developed countries to mediate the impact of the crisis by increasing aggregate demand. In this regard it said:

“How does Africa feature in the discussion on the global increase in aggregate demand? The answer is that Africa has not featured in this discussion except in asides that refer to the limited ability of emerging and developing countries to undertake fiscal stimulus programmes…”

The reality is that once more Africa has drifted to the periphery, contrary to what we sought to achieve, i.e. to place the challenge of Africa’s development at the centre of the global agenda arguing, as Yoshiro Mori did, that “there will be no stability and prosperity in the world in the 21^st Century unless the problems of Africa are resolved.”

This situation emphasises the vitally important imperative that among other things, we must reenergise our programmes focussed on:

· Relying on our resources to achieve Africa’s development, inspired by the objective to encourage self‐reliance;

· Promoting our regional and continental integration, including by building trans‐boundary infrastructure; and,

· Building the international solidarity movement to help ensure the necessary resource transfers and access to markets which Africa needs to achieve her development.

In this context, the question that remains to be answered is – what is to be done! In this regard I would like to propose Six (6) Steps Forward.

First of all we should recall what Haile Selassie said 47 years ago, that –

“The task on which we have embarked, the making of Africa will not wait. We must act, to shape and mould the future and leave our imprint on events as they pass into history. We seek … to determine whither we are going and to chart the course of our destiny.” During the 47 years since the founding of the Organisation of African Unity, our Continent has taken many collective decisions which answer the question – whither are we going? – and therefore chart the course of our destiny.

Accordingly and fortunately, we are not faced with the task to elaborate the fundamental policies that will result in the renaissance of Africa. This work has been done. The work that has been done has taken into account our many painful experiences since we freed ourselves from the shackles of imperialism, colonialism and apartheid.

This includes the lessons from our journey to achieve Africa’s rebirth in a situation in which we were constrained by a global political geometry defined by the Cold War and institutions dominated by Africa’s erstwhile colonial masters, by violent conflicts among ourselves, including the horrendous Genocide in Rwanda, constrained by domination by leaders who were nothing less than rapacious monsters, by failures to implement such far‐sighted programmes as the Lagos Plan of Action for the socio‐economic transformation of Africa, by the prevalence among our ruling elites of a culture of self‐enrichment through theft and corruption, and by the demobilisation of the masses of the people, turning them away from the task to engage in continuing struggle as their own liberators.

The challenge we confront is to answer the question practically – what shall we do to translate the policies and programmes our Continent has adopted to achieve Africa’s renewal into reality! As we celebrate Africa Day we must therefore identify the practical steps we must take to achieve this objective.

1‐ One of these is to build and nurture the native intellectual cadre committed to the transformation of Africa as visualised by leading African patriots and thinkers for 150 years, from Tiyo Soga, to Uhadi waseluhlangeni, and Haile Selassie, and onward to Cheik Anta Diop, Ayi Kwei Armah and Ngugi wa Thiong’o, among others. An urgent task in this regard is to rebuild and sustain our universities and other centres of learning, attract back to Africa the intelligentsia that has migrated to the developed North, build strong links with the intelligentsia in the African Diaspora, and give the space to these the time and space they need to help determine the future of the Africans.

2‐ Another is to develop the capacity in our state, government, business and civil society institutions to implement the already agreed Continental programmes, which visualise a renewed Africa of peace, democracy, development, unity and pride in its place as “the driving force behind vibrant development of human society in the 21st Century”, of which Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori spoke.

3‐ What this surely means, among other things, is that we should resurrect the African Renaissance Movement which many African patriots in many African countries launched at the beginning of the 21st Century, which sought to mobilise and unite the African masses so that, once more, as we did in the struggle against colonialism and apartheid, we act as our own liberators. When I spoke at an occasion in August 1998 to launch of the South African chapter of this Movement, I said that “To be a true African is to be a rebel in the cause of the African Renaissance, whose success in the new century and millennium is one of the great historic challenges of our time.”

Further, we quoted the Senegalese, Cheik Anta Diop when he said: “The African who has understood us is the one who, after reading our works, would have felt a birth in himself, of another person, impelled by an historical conscience, a true creator, a Promethean carrier of a new civilisation and perfectly aware of what the whole earth owes to his ancestral genius in all the domains of science, culture and religion.”

The African Renaissance Movement of which I speak should indeed seek to inspire the millions of the African masses to ‘feel a birth in themselves, of another person, a true creator, a Promethean carrier of a new civilisation’. Together we must be the organisers of this Movement.

4‐ Yet another practical step we must take is to increase the momentum in terms

development and transformation of Africa came to take its rightful and prominent place in the global agenda, binding the rest of the world to interact with our Continent according to principles, objectives and programmes Africa itself has set, which include the critically important objective of the eradication of poverty and underdevelopment.

In this context our international partners agreed to join us in creating the necessary institutional mechanisms to give practical effect to the kind of partnership spelt out in NEPAD, and effectively address the challenge of “mutual accountability”.

In this regard we must engage in struggle to ensure that the global agenda addresses such imperatives as capital and other resource transfers to Africa, the conclusion of the Doha Development Round, as a development round, and the democratisation of the international system of governance, which must not be delayed any further.

5‐ Another matter on which we must act is to achieve African cohesion in terms both of what the Continent says to itself and what it says to the rest of the world.

The objective to achieve the unity of our Continent, perhaps as a federation or confederation of states, will take time to achieve. However this does not mean that Africa cannot speak with one voice on matters of common interest.

Of critical importance in this regard is that we should do everything possible to strengthen both the regional organisations, the Regional Economic Communities, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the African Union and its institutions, including the Pan African Parliament and others. There is no gainsaying the fact that all these institutions are relatively weak, which militates against the capacity of our Continent to act collectively to advance the interests of the African masses as a

whole, and which is a fundamental condition for the success of each of our countries, as was the unity of the oppressed in our country with regard to the struggle for our liberation.

6‐ The last point we would like to make in the context of what we need to do to help ensure that Africa claims the 21st Century relates to what Tiyo Soga said almost 150 years ago – that we must develop the media and the means to communicate correctly about who we are, what we are, what we are doing to change our condition, and where we seek to be tomorrow and the day after.

Thus should we, on both the objective and the subjective planes, act to determine our destiny – to ‘keep our ‘individuality’ and ‘distinctiveness’, amid the wreck of empires, and the revolution of ages’, as Tiyo Soga put it.

A fortnight hence the 2010 FIFA Soccer World Cup will kick off. From the beginning we had intended that this important tournament should help Africa to determine her destiny and take its rightful place in the world community of nations. In this regard, when we presented our Bid to the FIFA Executive Committee in 2004 I said: “(The millions of Africans) have embarked on an exciting human journey. This is an African journey of hope – hope that, in time, we will arrive at a future when our continent will be free of wars, refugees and displaced people, free of tyranny, of racial, ethnic and religious divisions and conflicts, of hunger, and the accumulated weight of centuries of the denial of our human dignity…

“(Through the decision to afford Africa the privilege to host the Soccer World Cup, FIFA has) conveyed the message to all Africans, both on the continent and the African Diaspora, that you are ready and willing to accompany us on our journey of hope, and give us the strength and stamina we need to traverse the difficult terrain that separates us from Africa’s renaissance.”

Accordingly as we wish our national team, Bafana Bafana, and the tournament success, we must, at the same time, use the occasion of the Soccer World Cup to inspire ourselves to persist on our journey of hope, supporting the decisions taken by the African Union which make this decade the African Women’s Decade and this year, the Year of Promoting Peace through Sports.

Earlier in this Lecture I spoke of Tiyo Soga’s newspaper, Indaba. Unfortunately, during its third year it ceased publication. However, it was replaced by Isigidimi samaXhosa, which became a platform for vigorous debate among the emerging African intelligentsia. One of its most active contributors was one Jonas Ntsiko, who also wrote under the pen‐name, Uhadi waseluhlangeni, ‘The Harp of the Nation’. In 1883 Uhadi wrote an article which sought to alert all Africans about the threat posed to all of them by the system of imperialism and colonialism, regardless of their specific nationality. Specifically the article mentioned how the kings of the baSotho and amaXhosa and the communities they led had fallen victim to colonialism, having engaged in separate struggles to oppose this eventuality.

Uhadi therefore urged that the Africans should start an open debate among themselves to determine how they should respond to this threat, suggesting that only their unity would guarantee their independence.

This sentiment was repeated 30 years later when the African National Congress was established in 1912, with the task, among others, “to bury the demon of tribalism”.

Uhadi wrote:

“Therefore create in the newspaper the arena for those who have this view or the other, to talk about those things that serve the welfare of the black people and theirs, so that we come to know what should be done. On that arena will appear orators, and poets who will sing our praises, and others who will hail the Other. What harm will it do if a MoSotho who speaks in what you consider a contrary voice says:

Vukani bantwana

Bentab’ eBosiko,

Seyikhal’ ingcuka

Ingcuk’ emhlophe,

Ibawel’ amathambo

‘Mathambo kaMshweshwe,

Mshweshw’ onobuthongo

Phezul’ entabeni.

Siyarhol’ isisu

Ngamathamb’ enkosi,

Ubomv’ umlomo

Kuxhap’ uSandile …

Translation

Arise offspring

Of Thaba Bosui,

The wild dog howls

The white wild dog,

Hungry for the bones

The bones of Moshoeshoe

Moshoeshoe who sleeps

On the mountain top.

Weighed down by its bloated stomach

Bulging with the bones of kings,

Its mouth is bright red

Red with the blood of Sandile…

We have met here to reiterate our commitment to the renaissance of Africa and to celebrate Africa Day. In the article we have just cited, Uhadi said: “It would seem to me that during these days, when the nation has been subjugated, when it is victim to protracted wars and short periods of peace, the patriots call on their leaders both

to give them the time and space they need to determine the future of the nation, and to give due importance to the history the oppressed are making.”

As we disperse and go our various ways, we would do well to remember that as Uhadi said almost 130 years ago – ‘Arise offspring of Thaba Bosui; the wild dog howls, still, hungry for the bones of the children of Africa.’ In this situation we should give ourselves the time and the space the African masses need to determine the future of our Continent, at all times conscious of the glorious history that Africans have made through the ages, and the history they continue to make to this day as they strive to claim

the 21st Century.

Thank you.

Stand Up Comedy – my years of one-liners

Yes, I was a stand up comedian many years ago. This happened by default. I went to watch stand comedy at the Comedy Warehouse in Cape Town. The year was 2003. I looked at the people on stage and said to myself, “Self, you can do this.”

I decided to do it. However I didn’t want to be a black comedian doing black jokes. My material was very dry one-liner kind of stuff. So there, I was a stand-up comedian. Whether I was funny or not is up for debate. This is when I was younger, thinner, faster and uglier.

Vuvuzela Guy in New York Cheers for everything

This is hilarious. I would expect someone in New York to do this.

My TEDx Talk. “The importance of creating your own narrative”

I am grateful for this opportunity I was afforded to speak at TEDxSoweto. I was sick, so I keep clearing my voice. Please excuse the audio quality and the lighting. There are several areas I could have improved the talk.

If you notice, there is a round red mat on the stage, speakers were meant to stand on it. The first thing I did when I was on stage I said, “What happened to the rest of the Japanese flag?” I thought that was funny. So did the audience. Anyhow. Moving right along. Or not. Enjoy. Or not.

‘Black man, you’re on your own’*

I wrote a blog that lamented the fact that 91% of the CEOs of some 295 companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange are white last week, and boy did I get called names. I was called a racist amongst other things. To be honest I didn’t want to carry on writing about that subject on this column, but the interest and emotion that it seemed to provoke in people left me with no choice but to tackle the subject even further. The subject of race and economics, that is.

What I have come to realise is that it is almost impossible to address the issue of race without being labelled a racist. It does not matter how reasonable one is being on the subject – a clear sign that we have not healed as a nation and it will take some time before any healing takes place. We are divided, often along racial lines; where racial lines are closing class lines emerge. The topics that people have around their dinner tables and braai stands reinforce the “us and them” attitudes. Some politicians prefer it that way, keeping us divided because this gives them power over us. They tell us to fear those people, not to trust them, not in so many words but the clues are there.

I am currently reading Doris Kearns Goodwins biography on Lincoln, Team of Rivals. (Be warned, it’s a thick book, rivalling the Bible but remarkably shorter than Gaddaffi’s speech at the United Nations last year.) At a point when America was deeply divided over the slavery issue with the South refusing to free its slaves, Lincoln made his “A House Divided” speech during his Senatorial race (which he lost). In 1858, two years later he would be propelled to the presidency on an anti-slavery platform.

He said a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Incidentally Lincoln made that speech on June 16, albeit a different year, 1858.

A divided South Africa on the economic front cannot stand. Take a look at our neighbours up north – Zimbabwe. They were split racially and economically. A politician exploited the divisions. If the private sector does not mend the economic divisions, some politician will widen them. In the end the corporate world will lose what it thought it was protecting.

We find ourselves divided when it comes to the economic front. Some white people feel that they are being robbed of their right to make money. Others feel that they are no longer wanted nor needed in South Africa because of the colour of their skin. What they fail to understand is that there are black people who feel that this freedom is worthless because they still have nothing. They still see white people prosperous while they get poorer and poorer. Each side sees themselves as worse than the other. Each side paints itself as a greater victim than the other. Some scream reverse racism while others scream economic apartheid.

The truth is there are no victims. There are many who expect manna from heaven. There will be no such thing. People were on their own during apartheid, or if you wish, the desert years. There was no manna then, there will be none now. In the words of the great Steve Biko, “Black man, you are on your own”.

We have to make things happen for ourselves, study, work and above all, make a way where there is none; that is what every celebrated captain of industry has done. To borrow and to use his words as my own, White man, you are also on your own. South Africans, you are all on your own.

Taking individual responsibility is the only thing that will end these divisions. Entitlement will widen them. South Africans, you are on your own. If we are to be a great nation we have to realise that the path to greatness is not achieved through excuses.

*originally appeared on News24 http://www.news24.com/Columnists/Khaya-Dlanga/Black-man-youre-on-your-own-20100309

Nelson Mandela’s speech at the funeral of Oliver Tambo

SPEECH OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS, NELSON MANDELA, AT THE FUNERAL OF THE NATIONAL CHAIRPERSON OF THE ANC, OLIVER REGINALD TAMBO.

JOHANNESBURG, MAY 2, 1993.

Master of Ceremonies,

Our dear Adelaide, Thembi, Dali, Tselane and the rest of the Tambo family,

Your Majesties,

Esteemed international dignitaries,

Fellow mourners,

Comrades:

A great giant who strode the globe like a colossus has fallen.

A mind whose thoughts have opened the doors to our liberty has ceased to function.

A heart whose dreams gave hope to the despised has for ever lost its beat.

The gentle voice whose measured words of reason shook the thrones of tyrants has been silenced. Peoples of the world!

Here lies before you the body of a man who is tied to me by an umbilical cord which cannot be broken.

We say he has departed. But can we allow him to depart while we live!

Can we say Oliver Tambo is no more, while we walk this solid earth!

Oliver lived not because he could breathe.

He lived not because blood flowed through his veins.

Oliver lived not because he did all the things that all of us as ordinary men and women do.

Oliver lived because he had surrendered his very being to the people.

He lived because his very being embodied love, an idea, a hope, an aspiration, a vision.

While he lived, our minds would never quite formulate the thought that this man is other than what the naked eye could see.

We could sense it, but never crystallise the thought that with us was one of the few people who inhabited our own human environment, who could be described as the jewel in our crown.

I say that Oliver Tambo has not died, because the ideals for which he sacrificed his life can never die.

I say that Oliver Tambo has not died because the ideals of freedom, human dignity and a colour-blind respect for every individual cannot perish.

I say he has not died because there are many of us who became part of his soul and therefore willingly entered into a conspiracy with him, for the victory of his cause.

While the ANC lives, Oliver Tambo cannot die!

While Umkhonto we Sizwe exists, Oliver Tambo cannot die!

Oliver Tambo cannot die while his allies in the South African Communist Party and the Congress of South African Trade Unions remain loyal to the common purpose.

O.R. cannot cease to be, while the millions of our people gather themselves into the democratic organisations that make up our own rainbow coalition.

O.R. cannot be consigned to the past, while those who are with us today from the rest of the world remain as they have been, opponents of the apartheid crime against humanity, proponents of the common vision of justice and peace, defenders of the right of the child, the man, the woman and the beast of the forest to live, to be free and to prosper.

We all know many who have killed in defence of oppression. But we also know that some of these have themselves been victims of oppression.

We know that black and white, across the globe – the Pole, the Greek, the Ethiopian, the Cuban, the Brazilian and the Eritrean, people of all nationalities, are all united in their opposition to apartheid and injustice.

While these exist, Oliver Tambo cannot perish.

Let he or she who dares, stand up and tell us that it will happen that, while humanity survives, it will come to pass that O.R. Tambo will cease to be.

All tyrants, whatever their colour and their shape and their garments, come today and are gone tomorrow. The people, the victims of their tyranny, live on.

All tyrannical systems, whatever the name they give themselves – nazism, colonialism, apartheid, racism are some of their names – all, without exception, come today and tomorrow are no more than a bad memory.

The opponents of tyranny -

the South African, Oliver Tambo,

the South African, Chris Hani,

the South African, Albert Luthuli,

the Indian. Indira Gandhi,

the Indian, Rajiv Gandhi,

the Grenadian, Maurice Bishop,

the Zimbabweans, Herbert Chitepo, Jason Moyo and Josiah Tongogara,

the Mozambican, Samora Machel,

the Swede. Olof Palme,

the Americans, Martin Luther King Jr, John F. Kennedy and Malcolm X,

the Angolan, Aghostino Neto,

the Guinean. Amilcar Cabral,

the Nigerian, Murtala Mohamed,

the Chilean, Salvador Allende,

the Ghanaian, Kwame Nkrumah,

the Egyptian, Abdul Gamal Nasser,

the Motswana, Seretse Khama,

the Swazi, King Sobhuza II,

the woman, the man, the son, the daughter, the unknown soldier, the nameless heroes and heroines for whom no songs of praise are sung

all of them continue, still, to speak to us because they live.

Dear brother:

You set yourself a task which only the brave would dare. Somewhere in the mystery of your essence, you heard the call that you must devote your life to the creation of a new South African nation.

And having heard that call, you did not hesitate to act.

It may be that all of us – your dear wife, Adelaide, your children, those of us who are proud to count ourselves among your friends, your closest comrades – it may be that all of us will never be able to discover what it was in your essence which convinced you that you, and us, could, by our conscious and deliberate actions, so heal our fractured society that out of the terrible heritage, there could be born a nation.

All humanity knows what you had to do to create the conditions for all of us to reach this glorious end.

The are many who did not understand that to heal we had to lance the boil.

There are many who still do not understand that the obedient silence of the enslaved is not the reward of Peace which is our due.

There are some who cannot comprehend that the right to rebellion against tyranny is the very guarantee of the permanence of freedom.

We demand answers from all those who have set themselves up as your critics, but still dare to call themselves democrats.

We want to know – if life itself was threatened, as apartheid threatened the very existence of those who are black, was it not imperative that everything be done to end apartheid~ and if necessary by force of arms!

We want to know – if a crime against humanity was being perpetrated, as did the apartheid system, was it not necessary to ensure that the criminals were isolated and quarantined, and if necessary by the imposition of sanctions!

We want to know – if a social system was established whose central pillars were racial oppression and exploitation, such as the apartheid system was, would it not be correct that such a system be rendered unworkable and such a society ungovernable!

We want to know – when powerful, arrogant and brutal men deliberately close their ears to reason, and reply to the petitions of the dispossessed with the thunder of the guns, the crack of the whip and the rattle of the jail keys, is it not right to bring down the walls of Jericho!

Dear brother, dear friend, dear comrade:

You did all this and continued to maintain tolerance for your detractors and a healthy scorn for your enemies.

Today we stand watching the dawn of a new day.

We can see that we have it in our power to remake South Africa into what you wanted it to be – free, just, prosperous, at peace with itself and with the world.

Let all who value peace say together – long live Oliver Tambo!

Let all who love freedom say together – long live Oliver Tambo!

Let all who uphold the dignity of all human beings say together – long live Oliver Tambo!

Let all who stand for friendship among the peoples say together – long live Oliver Tambo!

Let all of us who live say that while we live, the ideals for which Oliver Tambo lived, sacrificed and died will not die!

Let all of us who live, say that while we live, Oliver Tambo will not die!

May he, for his part, rest in peace.

Go well, my brother and farewell, dear friend.

As you instructed, we will bring peace to our tormented land.

As you directed, we will bring freedom to the oppressed and liberation to the oppressor.

As you strived, we will restore the dignity of the dehumanised.

As you commanded, we will defend the option of a peaceful resolution of our problems.

As you prayed, we will respond to the cries of the wretched of the earth. As you loved them, we will, always, stretch out a hand of endearment to those who are your flesh and blood.

In all this, we will not fail you.

Towning finally explained (and its origins)

I promised to write a blog explaining the term, “ukutawuna” or “tawuning”. Well, I have finally come (excuse the pun which you will get later) around to fulfilling that promise even though it is far later than I originally intended.

Many people wonder what ukutawuna means, especially those who keep seeing it being used on Twitter. It is especially popular amongst your Eastern Cape crowd. Some know what it means but have no idea of its origins. Well, sit back, get a cup of coffee, tea or whatever it is that you drink and take a sip as you read.

The term basically means having sex without a condom. Uyatawuna. Ukutawuna. Now you know. However, read on, you might want to know the origins.

According to legend, ukutawana originated from South Africa’s second largest township, (my hometown by the way) Mdantsane, a township just outside East London. Those of you have had the misfortune of never having lived there, you have no idea what you are missing. Some of you will know Mdanstane for producing some of the greatest boxing champions in the world, and of course, myself. But let me get back to ukutawuna.

Back in the day, there used to be one taxi route from Mdantsane to East London. If you wanted to catch a taxi from Mdantsane to East London (which was just called town, or as the Xhosas say, “etawuni”) you had to go to the biggest taxi rank in Mdantsane, the rank is known as Highway. Needless to say you won’t find a highway anywhere near the rank.

As time moved on, a new area developed in greater East London called Vincent. A very popular mall by the name, drum roll, Vincent Park, opened there. In order to accommodate all the people who worked and shopped there, a new taxi route opened up from Mdantsane and it was named, well, you guessed it, Vincent.

However, this new Vincent route also ended up in central town. At the taxi rank in Mdatsane, Highway, you’d hear taxi drivers shouting to passersby, “Vincent!” and you’d also here, “Town straight!” Remember, both routes end up in town, but the one goes via Vincent. The distination is the same but the time to get there takes longer if you take Vincent.

With the advent of condoms and AIDS, the clever boys in the Mdanstane started referring to sex without a condom as Town Straight. It was essentially the same as taking a taxi from Mdanstane Highway and ending up town. If you had sex with a condom it was like taking a taxi from Mdantsane Highway to Vincent, then to town. It was a longer way of getting the same result.

As time moved on, having sex without a condom was no longer referred to as Town Straight, but a Xhosalised version of it which is ukutawuna.

Sorry white people, we are not the same.

This column was originally published in the Cape Times on January 17, from my In My Arrogant Opinion column.

AN ONLINE column I wrote suggesting that white people benefited and still benefit from apartheid led to much anger and name calling, as was to be expected. This was evidenced by some comments I read and discussions I’ve had with some of my white friends (yes, I’m not racist, some of my best friends are white).

Anyway, one friend said to me that he and I were the same because we went to very similar high schools, so I have not been disadvantaged in any way. I could understand where he was coming from, but then again, he hadn’t looked at my perspective.

He saw what he wanted to. What some white people don’t get is that we are not the same. We did not get the same start in life just because black people happen to have gone to good schools, too. Most of the black people of my generation first went to broken-down schools in the townships or villages before being afforded the opportunity to go to white schools.

I had to explain to my friend that I went to a school that had no electricity and no water. The school was made of mud huts. One classroom was shared between two grades, one grade faced in one direction and the other in another direction. And both classes would be in progress at the same time in this one space. The school was cleaned by the primary schoolchildren. Cow dung was used to “polish” the floors.

The level of education I received during the formative years of my life was significantly inferior. So we are not the same.

When I was allowed to go to a white school in 1991, I had only learnt to speak English two years before that. So we are not the same. When I went to high school, I couldn’t swim because the schools I’d been to had no swimming pools, and nor did our homes in the villages and townships. So we are not the same.

When I left high school, my parents didn’t have a car to give me, not that they had one for themselves either. There was no money saved up for my education because my parents’ jobs didn’t allow them to save money for me to go to tertiary institutions. So we are not the same.

When I started working, I did not work to help myself, I worked to send money to my mother so that she could eat and clothe herself, so that my brother and sister could continue going to a good school, a school of the same calibre that a white child goes to. This meant that I couldn’t do the things that white kids my age could do for themselves like buying a car if my parents hadn’t bought them one. So we are not the same.

When black kids want to buy a house, we don’t have our parents to put down a deposit for us because they haven’t had the opportunity to make that much money. Just because less than 1 percent of the black population can live well and afford to do things like that, doesn’t mean that all black people can be said to live like white people now.

If some of us are where we are today, that is because we had to run faster to be at the same level as some of the white kids who are in our age group. We are not the same.

This is not to say that we resent anything, we are just upset that some people want to pretend that we are the same. Just because we went to the same schools, work in the same offices, do the same jobs and live in the same leafy suburbs does not mean we are the same.

Far from it.

Thabo Mbeki will have the last laugh

I wrote this column last year and it appeared on the Cape Times.

Mbeki has been plotting a great revenge since his resignation. Or as many believe, his ousting from the presidential office, where he didn’t even have time to clear his office and residence according to reverend Frank Chikane’s Chikane Files. After he received his marching orders many thought that he had gone back to the drawing board to plot his revenge. They were right. He was.

Not the kind of man to want to write a biography about himself as former American presidents are prone to, most knew that he wouldn’t be sitting at home doing that. His revenge was far larger than a mere autobiography can master. He would not justify his actions in a book. Instead he was working on a legacy far larger than just the simple act of writing a best selling autobiography. We all know it would have been some great reading. Many of couldn’t wait to read his ANC “blogs” every Friday. They made for some reverting reading.

He has been very quiet since the events of 24 September 2008 when he had to vacate his position as the most powerful man in South Africa. However over the past few weeks we’ve heard a lot about him and the launch of the Thabo Mbeki Foundation, which is meant to deal with the implementation of policies for the betterment of Africa. Its main focus is people, to build capacity. This is his revenge.

His revenge would be of continental proportions. A legacy. In fact his revenge started long before even he knew that this would be his revenge. His “I am an African” speech, which made us all proud to be African, was a road map to his mind. If South Africa couldn’t appreciate him, then Africa would. As Jesus said according to the book of Luke 4:24, “I tell you the truth, no prophet is accepted in his hometown,” after he was rejected by his own in Nazareth where he had been brought up. This must have been how Mbeki felt. As he said in a recent interview, jokingly referring to his continental travels perhaps, “Even my wife calls me a visitor when I’m here.”

Now, now I’m not calling him the saviour of Africa nor am I comparing the man to Jesus. The man is a mere man, but his vision for Africa is not a mere vision. Mbeki is a controversial figure because he does at times hold unconventional views, the road less traveled. Some hate him for it. Some love him for it. Sometimes he is right, sometimes he is wrong, when he is wrong we throw stones at him. He is used to it by now.

According to the Mail&Guardian, the idea behind the Thabo Mbeki Foundation is to build capacity and capability to build an Africa that is capable and world class, “We felt that our weakness is people — we don’t have enough people to implement this programme of the African renewal. The foundation would, therefore, assist in developing people to implement policies.” He said. If he can own the minds that will be responsible for the renewal of Africa, surely, he will have the last laugh. He is building a future army for the betterment of the continent.

He may even be long dead or geriatric by the time the continent reaps the benefits of his programme. This reminds me Don Corleone from the Godfather, who set in motion plans that wouldn’t and could not be derailed even after he died.

By being the brains behind the plans to develop people for a noble cause, Africa’s renewal, there will be a new generation of future leaders on the continent who will lay the foundations to his legacy. His stamp on the African continent may not be realized just yet with his new venture, but it will live long after he is gone. This will be his revenge.

The Two most romantic stories in the Bible

The first story is about Jacob. Now Jacob, son of Isaac wanted to get married. So he went to his uncle’s crib who had two daughters. One hot. The other not so much. The oldest daughter was not so hot because the Bible says, “Leah had weak eyes.” I suspect she was squint. The younger daughter’s name was Rachel – and she damn hot too. How do I know? “For the Bible tells me so,” (sorry, couldn’t resist) the Bible tells us that  “Rachel had a lovely figure,” mind you, this was before the invention of bikinis. The Bible continues about Rachel, “and was beautiful.” And you guys thought the Bible wasn’t shallow sometimes?

Jacob wanted hot miss thang, Rachel. Duh, obviously. He was in love with her. Jacob was broke and had nothing, he offered to work for his uncle for seven years in order to afford to marry Her Royal Hotness, Rachel. Laban, Rachel’s dad agreed to this arrangement. Jacob worked for a whole seven years to get her. As the Bible puts it, “but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.” Ahhh, so romantic.

Then the seven years came to pass and he said to Laban, “Malume, give me my wife.” Ok, now brace yourself for the next few sentences. “My time is completed, and I want to make love to her.” This guy! Jacob basically said to his fiancée dad, “I wanna shag your daughter dude. It’s been a while.” Can you imagine telling your future father in-law that you want to “make love” to his daughter? The audacity of this man. In fact, give this man a Bells!

The wedding happened. She was covered, was brought to him in the night. They shagged and as we would say in the black custom to indicate that a lot of shagging happened, “They shagged and shagged, and shagged and shagged and shagged. So when morning came, there was Leah! He’d been doing the dirty with her all along.

Obviously Jacob is pissed off now. He worked seven years, a whole seven years to marry the hot one, now he gets the not so hot one. His uncle, the deceitful conniving bastard says, “Sorry nyana. But according to our custom, the older daughter has to get married first.” Probably said in Generation’s traditionalist voice, Khaphela’s. Then uncle Laban also gave him the hot daughter, Rachel, but he still had to work another seven years for her too.

The second story is a short one. It’s the story of the romantic, Elkanah, the prophet Samuel’s dad. Elkanah had two wives, this dude had nothing on Jacob Zuma. Hannah and Peninnah. Peninnah had children by the truck load, or should we say camel load? Hannah on other hand had nada. He’d go to the temple with his wives every year. This dude loved Hannah even though she had no kids. The wife with the kids would be rather bitchy to her for she had no kids. So she’d always be crying and would not eat. Elkanah would always say to her, “Hannah, why are you weeping? Why don’t you ear? Why are you downhearted? Don’t I mean more to you more than ten sons?”

I think the, “Don’t I mean more to you than ten sons” bit is the most romantinc thing I’ve read in the Bible. For what he is saying is this, I don’t love you for a reason. The only reason I love you is because I love you. You don’t have to do anything. All you have to do is be you. That is all. It’s almost a prophetic image of Christ who loves us despite ourselves. We don’t have to do anything for him to love us. He loves just nje.

Pastor Khaya over and out.

 

 

The lightness of being light skinned*

*originally appeared in the Cape Times

This is an age-old discussion that has gone on in the black community for some time now. Light-skinned people are automatically considered beautiful simply because they are lighter skinned speaks volumes about the insecurities that we have as a community. When I still lived in Cape Town I was surprised to find that these insecurities were deeply and even more profoundly present in the coloured (mixed race) community. In many respects, its manifestations were worse. If one was lighter, or, if one wishes, looked white, then they were held in higher esteem even within the same family. And this is well after the ending of apartheid too.

I found myself getting angry just hearing that as a coloured friend told me about these nuances within the community. He had been the darker child; his sister was lighter. She got better treatment at home when they were growing up. Often, comments would be made about his darkness, and they were never said in the positive light. He even told me about how most people in the coloured community would always reference their European ancestry, and never, ever touch on their African one. It as if they miraculously became coloured.

“Everybody we rolling. We rolling with some light skinned girls and some Kelly Rowlands.” That’s a line from Kanye West’s Power, in his latest album, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. Those who do not know who Kelly Rowlands is, she was the darker one in Destiny’s Child, Beyonce was the light skinned one. It has to be said that the line is kinda funny because well, there’s this perception in some sections of the black community that a light skinned black person is somehow more attractive than a darker skinned one. Sadly.

Maybe we should start saying, “beauty is in the skin of the lighter skinned.” Funny enough, while black people are trying to be lighter, white people are tanning to get a couple of shades darker. Of course, this must not be confused with white people wanting to be black. That would be the day. Unless of course they were hoping for a tender.

What does this say? Is this a legacy of the past? I guess when William Faulkner wrote, “The past is never buried. It’s not even past,” he knew what he meant. The past it seems is still light skinned, even amongst black folk. I got nothing against light-skinned folk. I mean, depending on the weather, I too become a couple of shades lighter.

Our communities still have a distorted view of what is beautiful. The views are still shackled to the past. One would think that with freedom, and better-educated youth, these views would have shifted to a more educated and wiser expression of beauty. But alas, even with the new generation, we still feed each other with insecure ignorance.

There is this horrible phrase I keep hearing, “Yellow Bone.” It is reference to a light-skinned black person. And 90% of the time, the expression is used to automatically exclaim that the “Yellow boned” black person is somewhat extremely attractive by the virtue of their yellow-boness.

I think we have gone past the era of blaming the past for the way we view ourselves. It is time we learned how to accept different kinds of beauty in our different communities. Beauty is not yet free it seems. Black is beautiful. And so is white. I would know, I’ve dated across the colour lines. And across shades of blackness.

There is a problem with viewing light skin as being the pinnacle of black beauty. Holding those kinds of views says a lot about the black and coloured people who think light skin is superior. It’s an inferiority complex they are unaware they have.

The one thing that must be learnt is that none is superior to another. Light and dark are equally beautiful. Some day perhaps, we will see the end of the terms, “Yellow Bone.” And accept beauty for beauty and nothing else. Black is beautiful, no matter what shade of black.

Why I dig chicks.

This article originally appeared on May issue of Women’s Health 2011. Buy a copy.

There was a great ad that went out on Women’s Day many years ago that read: “A woman without her man is nothing.” Then the same copy appeared on the next page, punctuated to read: “A woman: without her, man is nothing. Happy Women’s Day.” The simple truth is, were it not for women, none of us would be around.

A great example of what I love about women can be found in this story about one of my current heroes, Barack Obama. Back in 2004, during the Democratic National Convention, when Obama was invited to speak at the convention by Democratic candidate and Vietnam war hero, Senator John Kerry, the already charismatic speaker would deliver his greatest speech yet, the one that would make him famous.

Now you don’t get to be Barack Obama by being modest about your abilities. He knew that the whole of America would be watching him, a mere state senator at the time, yet he was described as calm. According to the New Yorker:

“Obama has always had a healthy understanding of the reaction he elicits in others, and he learnt to use it to his advantage a very long time ago. Marty Nesbitt remembers Obama’s utter calm the day he gave his celebrated speech in Boston, which made him an international celebrity and a potential 2008 presidential candidate. ‘We were walking down the street late in the afternoon,’ Nesbitt told me, ‘and this crowd was building behind us, like it was Tiger Woods at the Masters.’ ‘Barack, man, you’re like a rock star,’ Nesbitt said.

‘Yeah, if you think it’s bad today, wait until tomorrow,’ Obama replied.

‘What do you mean?’

‘My speech,’ Obama said, ‘is pretty good.’”

He was introduced, and the music soared as though a WWE wrestler was climbing to the podium. He embraced his wife, Michelle, and as he turned to ascend the stairs she patted his butt and said, “Don’t mess it up.” Those were the last words he heard before he delivered what would propel him to the White House.

Michelle understood her husband’s tendency towards over-confidence. She brought him down to the level of his constituents; she reminded him not to believe his own hype. That’s what I love about women: your ability to remind us that we are men, even though we might imagine ourselves as gods from time to time. And when you remind us of what we really are, we perform better.

We all know the famous saying: “Behind every great man is a woman.” The real truth is probably that behind every man is a great woman. Hillary Clinton was known for giving advice to Bill Clinton during his presidency; at one point she said, “We are the president.” But no one suspects she asks for Bill’s advice now that she’s secretary of state. I also love women’s strength – and you don’t even have to go to gym for it. That’s what fascinates and confuses us: how you’re able to be so strong while defying every male definition of “strength”, like not being too tough to cry.

A man playing rugby can’t say to a player, “Ouch bru! Too hard.” To us, physical resilience equals strength. Behind every great man is an even greater woman; the woman who made him. And any day now, when women are able to run the world without pretending to be in the background, we will all be better for it.

Hookers you know*

*originally appeared in the Cape Times

By Khaya Dlanga

A friend of mine expressed shock and horror when he found out that a girl he knew and thought was a descent woman turned out to be a hooker too. It’s not like she doesn’t have a job. She does. It’s pays relatively well when compared to most. This woman lives in a respectable neighborhood, nice flat, a good car and high-flying friends. She goes out like other young people and maintains all the pretences of the good life that most young people live in Johannesburg. What she does and her living standards don’t match up though but no one really thought that far. My friend tells me that most thought she probably had a secret sugar daddy bank rolling her lifestyle.

Alas, it is not as it seems, she turned out to be a lady of the night when the sun hides. Her parents, who believe that they raised a daughter and a citizen of good standing would be disappointed and perhaps even blame themselves if they were to find out that their beloved daughter was being beloved by many men in the darkness and cover of the night.  As Elayne Boosler put it, “When the sun comes up, I have morals again.” This is what it appears to be for these ladies who participate in this lifestyle.

Why is this, one may ask. It is all in pursuit of the Johannesburg dream, or the Bling dream or the BEE dream if you wish. It is about keeping up with the Motsepes. Unable to supplement the high life that they have found themselves in, they turn to other means to supplement it.

To judge these girls would be wrong. Most of the time we don’t know why they are doing it. Having said that, it is hardly justifiable. The society we live in these days forms these young woman that what you have you must flash (excuse the pun), if you don’t flash it, it means that you are poor and are not worthy of any respect.

In the words of George Soros, whom I have quoted many times, ““Unsure of what they stand for, people increasingly rely on money as the criterion of value. What is more expensive is considered better…People deserve respect and admiration because they are rich.” This is how many see life in South Africa.

The crass acceptable materialism that we have come to accept as the norm and standard by which we value one another is to blame. Over the years, we have seen an increase in this selfless abandon to “look at what I have,”  and because I have it, you must think I am important. Character has plays second fiddle to materialism. Ubuntu has gone hiding. Which bring me to my next point.

Some have taken sides on the war of words between Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) secretary General, Zwelinzima Vavi and multi-millionaire Kenny Kunene. It is reported that Kunene spent more than R700 000 to celebrate his 40^th birthday. Vavi was not impressed by this one bit. In all truth, and in a fair world, Kenny Kunene should be allowed to spend his money as he sees fit. Unfortunately we live in a country that isn’t. Some will chose to judge him based on this. Having said that, I think that Kunene should throw Vavi a R700 000 surprise birthday party, just to mess with his head.

My friend’s friend who has entered the world of prostitution in order to supplement her income thought that easy money was the best way to keep on impressing her fickle friends, in order to keep herself in the circle of people she doesn’t even like. It is a hard life.

This is an indictment not on her, but on us as a nation and our leaders who have created this impression that easy money and the high life is how one becomes a member of the elite. We longer have moral authorities but the bling authorities are as numerous. Who will bring us back to Ubuntu?

The classism in Social Networks (Facebook vs Twitter)

Whether you like it on not, the social networks are here to stay. I recall many, many years ago when folks resisted buying cell phones because they thought that it would make them too accessible. Then times moved and they realized that they needed to have them. Now you just try taking their cell phones from them and you’ll get a clap faster than Kanye West can grab a microphone from Taylor Swift.

Those who cannot accept these truths to be self-evident are doomed to be sidelined and will be left  in the dark ages of the 90s. I am always amused by how those who don’t participate try to look down on us who do as if we don’t have lives. If only they knew that our lives are far richer and busier than they have ever been, precisely because of these of the social networks they look down on. But this is not what I wanted to scribble about. I want to write about the classism on these social networks. But before that happens, let me go through some numbers.

According to Facebook, there are 3,485,800 South Africans on Facebook. That’s fewer than 10% of us on it, yet it’s influence is far greater than the number of people on it. Unfortunately Twitter stats aren’t as easy to come by, and the ones that we can access aren’t very recent. However, according to SA Twitter Report by Fuseware, in March this year (2010), there were some 55 000 people who tweetered at least once a month. The number of people on Twitter is far less than those on Facebook. But I would be so bold as to claim that Twitter is even more influential than Facebook.

This year, Time Magazine named the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg its Person of the Year. (I still think the title should have gone to Steve Jobs, just because of the iPad alone.) Facebook by the numbers per minute: There are 510 404 comments per minute. There are 231 605 messages sent every 60 seconds. In total, there some 1 789 736 actions performed on the site by it’s more than 500 million users every 60 seconds. Facebook has 700 status update per second. Twitter, with less than half the users has a staggering 600 updates per second. And this is where the classism comes in.

You see, Twitter users think that they are better than Facebook users. They believe that they are smarter, sassier, get news faster. In fact, by the time Twitter users stop discussing a breaking story, Facebook users are only starting to find out about it. At least a lot of the time. As a joke, I once wrote on Twitter and said Facebook is like Zuma, one with the masses, and that Twitter was like Mbeki, a bit a elitist and a little difficult to understand.

Someone once wrote that Facebook is for people you went to school with. Twitter is for people you wish you went to high school with. Naturally, that was written on Twitter. I like to make fun of Facebook too, not because there is anything wrong with it, it’s just fun to make fun of it. That’s about it.

The platforms really serve two different functions. It’s like calling an iPad an iPhone. You won’t know what they are for unless you use them. Unfortunately, some people who use them don’t really know how to use them differently. They use them as though they are one and the same thing.

But I have to admit, Twitter is better than Facebook. Facebook is like that uncle who was hip in the 80s and he still thinks he’s hip now. Maybe Facebook is like visiting that family you don’t really want to visit but visit because you have to.

Twitter on the hand has brought the world even closer. It has made people and opportunities that may have been inaccessible before, accessible. Twitter is basically #winning

“Always use a condom” said my dying uncle to me

Many years ago, in 2000 an uncle of mine was dying from HIV AIDS related complications. He was as thin as an anorexic. He had summoned me from Cape Town where I was studying to see him in the way back home in East London. I knew he was dying. We all did, although no one ever talked about what it was he was dying from. I took a bus that very day to East London as matter of urgency, for all I knew, he could have died while I was on my way home.

When I saw him, he was frail. Thin. Gaunt. Everything about him was the opposite of what I remembered. The once proud, loud Xhosa man who could keep any room spellbound with his stories was no more. He needed a walking stick and used the walls of the house to help him keep his balance as he walked around the house.

I’d been in the house for two days before he said what he called me for. We were in the TV room together watching something. I call it something because that’s what it was. Something. Watching but not really watching. We both pretended to be unaware of death’s shadow written on him. Then he spoke to me. Not that he never spoke to me during the two days in the house. He had, he’d joked many times too. His sense of humour hadn’t left him.

When he spoke to me, he didn’t turn to look at me, instead he carried on watching the TV I knew he wasn’t watching. He said to me in Xhosa, “Kwedini.” The Kwedini was said in that commanding, authoritative Xhosa that Xhosa men of his generation seem to summon at a whim. “Kwedi,” he paused, “Usebenzise icondom.” (“My boy. Always use condom.”) I kept quiet. I didn’t really know what to say. Should I tell him that I haven’t had sex in years anyway? It seemed inappropriate. But all I said was, “Ewe malume.” Then he got up, his cane next to him, his hand against the wall. He went to the bedroom. I was left alone to watch the TV I wasn’t watching.

“The best advice I got from my dad? Wear a condom.” That’s what Richard Branson says his dad told him. That’s what reminded me of my uncle. My uncle told me the same thing. Except my uncle was dying when he told me. But I guess it means something different when your dying uncle tells you the same thing.

I went back to Cape Town the next day, only to return the following week after he died.

I didn’t really use his advice. I only used it seven years after he told me; after I could no longer resist my vow of celibacy. Am I still celibate? I plead the fifth.

Don’t vat ‘n sit (Don’t live together) it’s for your own good.

*originally appeared on the Cape Times

It seems as if moving in together to get to know each other before marriage means that you get to know each other so well that you can’t stand each other. So much in fact that once you get married, you get divorced. I’m not saying this, a study conducted by Dr Scott Stanley of Denver university said it.  As you can see, these are not the teachings of some Bible-bashing religious nut case.  Living in sin now is scientifically proven it seems. Familiarity does breed contempt after all, at least in this case.

The study says that cohabiting couples are more likely to get a divorce than those who do not. In fact these couples are also twice as likely to think about divorce than the good ‘ol fashioned, “we’ll only move in together after we get married.” There is some sense in boring old school sensibilities after all.

So if you’re living together because you think that will strengthen your marriage, you couldn’t be further from the truth. You’re actually living together to increase your prospects of divorce once you get married. If you’re living together now I suggest one of you packs your bags and leave. Seriously. Scram. Hit the road. Stop it now you divorce monger! Not that that’s a cure for divorce.

The news isn’t all bad for those who want to try out this living together thing before getting married; if you only move in together after your engagement, your chances of divorce are the same as those who only move in together after saying “I do”.

Another American study, Another American study, The Decline of Marriage And Rise of New Families by the Pew Research Centre says that in 1960, 68% of all twenty-something year-old were married. In the year of our Lord, 2008, just 26% were hitched. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that even in South Africa, people are getting married later or choosing not to get married at all. Unfortunately I couldn’t get my hands on any South African study.

There has been an increase in people thinking that marriage is not a prerequisite to have children either. Many young women who see their biological clocks ticking furiously decide to have children out of wedlock because all they see are men are unwilling to commit. In a way, young men of today are essentially letting young women live in (for lack of a better word) sin.

The busy lives that we lead today also contribute to this “marriage is not so important” view. Many people say that marriage is obsolete. Funny thing is those very same young people who say marriage is obsolete are the very same people who say that they would still like to get married. As seemingly uncool marriage it, it seems to be pretty cool. It’s uncoolness, it could be argued, is what makes it cool.

So what does this mean for us young, restless and unmarried? It means that as much we would like to tell ourselves those old sensibilities are exactly that, old. There is good reason and place for them. What they are we don’t fully know just yet.

As much as we would like to see ourselves as happy single, we really aren’t that happy. The more studies I read into this area of marriage the unhappier I become, and I’m not even a philosopher.

Studies also show that married people are happier than singletons, despite the jokes about how unhappy married people. I suspect that the jokes are a conspiracy by the married to keep happiness in the family (excuse the pun. Or not). Do you know what sucks even more? Married people live longer than singles. Basically science is telling us to get married if we want to live longer and be happy. I have to admit reluctantly that science is right, old school is the real deal. On that note. Stuff you science!

Ma Albertina Sisulu, a soldier of love

*originally appeared on the Cape Times on 13 June 2006, two days after her funeral

 

One of the most moving moments for me at the funeral of Albertina Sisulu was the mourners spontaneously burst into song after Graca Machel read a message from Nelson Mandela who said that he would have loved to have been at the funeral but, “It would be too painful for me to watch you go.”

“The years have taken the toll on us, one-by-one friends and comrades have passed on and it feels like a part of oneself has been cut off.” He has lost many of his friends. He is seeing them pass one by one. “I want to bid farewell to a comrade and friend,” Machel read to the crowd. “You are part of my being, you and Walter…I want to express my deep gratitude to you.”  This is why I think the crowds started singing about Mandela; they knew it wouldn’t be long before we miss him. When Albertina died, she was the same age as Mandela.

She never sought glory for her role in the struggle. Humility is a kind of genius. Albertina Sisulu was that kind of genius. At one point, her husband, children and a grandchild were all in prison for their fight against apartheid, yet through it all she never lost her dignity and hope in human beings. Today, many of her children and grandchildren are in public service. One could call her family the Kennedys of South Africa.

Many people solely want to associate her with the struggle against apartheid, but there is something far greater that she showed young South Africans. Love. The resilience of that cheesy insipidity thing called love. Walter and Albertina’s greatest story is their obvious and apparent love for each other. Considering how skeptical the youth are about love, the lesson we should take from the Sisulus is that love is possible under any trying circumstance.

Walter and Albertina were not just the heroes of the struggle, but they were also heroes of love. In our broken societies today there are no greater role models than these two. Perhaps that is their greatest contribution to a youth that is constantly growing cynical about love. They search for it even though they no longer believe in it. Whenever we hear the story, or we see the a picture of Makhulu Albertina Sisulu, she makes us believe in love again.

As a relatively young person, I think that it is sad that we seem to forget the heroes of the struggle. Some times we forget them whilst they are still alive. Sadly.

We are running out of true heroes whose sole purpose was to serve the people. As we run out of them, our cups runneth over with self-serving “servants” of the people. Men and women who believe that they liberated the country to line their pockets with money and power. Albertina Sisulu was not one of those people. She felt that her duty was to teach her children to contribute to the nation. The duty of every grateful South African is to look for ways in which to serve the country. Let not those who struggled, have struggled in vain.

I love heroes. And I don’t mean the TV series. What I love about our heroes is the fact that they were all so human. What I love about Makhulu Albertina is that she was never trying to be hero. She was just doing what was right. It was for the right to be with her husband whom she loved so much. It was to free a country and a people which she loved so much. It was never about her, it was always about love.

She was a midwife. She delivered many children, so it was only fitting that she would also deliver a whole nation. May her memory never diminish. May we remember her always. Her quite dignity does not mean we ought to be quite about what she did for the country. There is nothing quite about it, there is every reason for us to brag about it, despite her humility.

The day I picked up a prostitute by accident

It was by accident I promise. I know there are many skeptical people out there who will chose not to believe this. It’s all true, I swear on Speedy’s Towel*. This one time (not at band camp), in Rondebosch Cape Town, my friend and I were on our way to church with two other friends in the car. It was dusk, and with it night things were starting to emerge. We’d happen to pick up one of these night things by accident.

As we drove it started to rain as it tends to during Cape Town winters. After all, if the weather didn’t change it wouldn’t be the weather. And Cape Town wouldn’t be Cape Town without the predictably unpredictable weather.

As the raindrops started trickling down I noticed a lovely young lady along the side of the road and my heart went out to her. After all, it was raining. And it was cold. And she was hot. And just maybe since we were going to church, maybe she needed Jesus too. As the good Christian I was back then, I turned to my friend who was driving and said, “Guys, don’t you think we should give her a lift. It’s raining and she looks like she’s getting cold and it’s getting late.” We were all in a generous mood because it was a Sunday and we were on our way to church. After all, What Would Jesus Do?

There was agreement in the car that we should give her lift. We stopped, I wound down my window and said, “Do you want a ride?” She gave me a slightly puzzled look. Looking back, it all makes sense now. She must have been confused by the library of Bibles in the car and the “ride” we were offering. She looked at the four of us for a bit too long, maybe three seconds before jumped in. She was quiet for a few seconds inside the car. I found it a little strange that she wasn’t telling us where she was going. And so I asked her where she was going in a bid to strike conversation.
“Excuse me?” She said.
“Where are you going,” I repeated.
She was quiet for about a two seconds. I think it was at that point that she realized that she was not going to be part of a kinky adventure with four strangers. Then she said, “I’m working!” My friend pulled over a little too quickly. I had no idea what she meant so I said, “Where do you work?” “I work here,” she said. The car stopped and she got out of the car.

She shut the door. I noticed that my friends were stifling laughter. As soon as we drove off they all laughed. I didn’t. I felt left out. “Guys, what am I missing here?” They continued to laugh. Eventually one of the buggers told me, “She’s a prostitute!” They laughed. “How do you know?” I asked. She said she works here Khaya, they said to me. I have my moments. I can be slow. I also laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed. I laughed last, so I laughed the hardest.

Anyhow, Jesus didn’t mind hanging out with prostitutes either.

*apologies to Speedy’s Towel. This is the last time I say anyhting about it. I promise. Sort of.

Since they won’t lead us, it’s time for us to lead our leader*

*originally published by the Cape Times on the 4th of July

One of the obsessions I have about South Africa is that of a vision for the country.

If they will not lead us, who will lead us? This question has consumed me for a very long time. We have people we call leaders but none of us have an idea of where we are being led, or why we are being led there.

I listened to Nkosinathi Biko speak at a YFM Gen Y talk recently. He made a very interesting point when he said that we do not have two centers of power but three. The three centers of power according to Biko are Luthuli House, The Union Building and The People. When politicians speak, they often forget the third. It is always about the decisions Luthuli House and the Union buildings make on behalf of The People. Those who are in power put themselves on pedestals often on the backs of the people while grandstanding with arrogance.

I think Nkosinathi Biko forgot the fourth centre of power in his analysis. The fourth being business. We rarely talk about the impact of business when it comes to our politics. It infests every single aspect of our lives and is deeply embedded within our politics. Business, better than The People understands that it needs to influence politics in order to thrive. Some of our politicians enter politics with the intention of power or self-enrichment. The consequence of this being that there is a symbiotic relationship between business and politics – the relationship ultimately benefits business and the politician more so than it does the third centre of power, The People. The People are often an after thought; let’s do something nice for Them so that they think we’re thinking about them.

The ANCYL is correct when it speaks about economic liberation in our lifetime. Man shall not live on political liberation alone, he needs economic liberation too. This is the hard truth that South Africa faces today. The country needs to give economic liberation to young people. Young people form the biggest unemployed grouping in the country. This young group has the capacity and ability to make its anger known. They have the energy and are angry enough.

What does this mean? It means that we need proper leadership from our politicians. Unfortunately, we have lost all faith in our politicians. It seems that it is now up to the third centre of power to drive the nation. Maybe people power is what we need. This is not to say the government is not doing anything. Unfortunately, sometimes the government is so out of touch and in denial mode that it refuses to accept what is obvious to everyone.

I have often lamented the lack of moral leadership in the current generation. Whenever societies achieve great strides, there has always been a great and loud moral voice. We think of Lincoln, Mandela, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Junior. The list is endless.

Perhaps we are entering a different age. An age with a leaderless moral voice. A voice that rises up and is captured by the third centre of power because it is sick and tired and is not going to take it anymore. When we look at the revolutions that have taken place in North Africa and Middle East, we can see that they had no one leader. This new age of leaderless moral voices will be lead by the new powerful social networks, Twitter and Facebook. And who uses these the most? Young people. Who is mostly affected by unemployment? Young people.

It is time that we lead the leaders. Since they cannot give us a vision for the country, perhaps we should lead our leaders and give them one. We cannot wait until it is too late. We need to give our leaders a vision. It is time we led the leaders.

 

Leave Mandela Alone!

*originally made an appearance in the Cape Times on the 31st of January 2011 when Mandela was hospitalised.

The media feeding frenzy that went on the last week surrounding the rumours of the demise of Nelson Mandela was profoundly disturbing. I was not disturbed because I think the man is immortal. I call him a man because he is that – a man, and all that befalls any man must befall him too, for he is only but a man. He was born a mere man but when he dies he will die an immortal.

Unlike other men though, he has achieved immortality not by living forever, for he will not, but because of what he has achieved in his lifetime. He managed to fit in a hundred lifetimes in one. That is the true mark of his immortality.

The truth is Nelson Mandela will never die. Like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Junior, Steve Biko, Oliver Tambo and countless other heroes who lived their lives for others. Yes, his human flaws will come flying when he eventually departs, just as some tried, unsuccessfully to tarnish those of the likes of Gandhi and MLK after they were deceased and could no longer defend themselves.

The world’s media descended upon Milpark Hospital in Johannesburg and waited to hear that Mandela was dead. It is as if they were hoping that he was dead so that they could have something big to break. The feeding frenzy made me wish for something I dreaded to wish. I wished that he would die in his sleep so that the circus we witnessed this past week doesn’t happen again.

I understand that many people complain about the media blackout. It is a legitimate cry nonetheless. I suspect though that the media would still have carried on with it’s frantic coverage even if the health concerns had been addressed timeously because the media is sceptical, as it should be.

It is time we left him alone. Mandela’s family gave him up to us for most of his life. The least we can do at this time is to give him back to them. They deserve him and we should at least give them that. The constant speculation deprives them of enjoying these last few months or years of his life with him.

Yes, he is the nation’s treasure, but he is also a husband, father, great grandfather and an uncle amongst other things. Yes we own him, let us not try to own his last moments, let his family do that. This is not Big Brother where we have to see every single detail of how he spends his last few moments before he is “evicted”. We will own him forever in history books, monuments and national holidays that will undoubtedly be made in his honour. I plead that we give his family space. Let’s not rob them again.

Of course we can wish him well and pray for his speedy recovery. Some are concerned that he will be a great loss to the nation if he dies. I don’t believe he will think that he is a great loss. What he would consider to be a loss is if we don’t fight against poverty, we stop the fight against AIDS. He would be devastated if South Africa were to return to a past he fought against. As he said during his trial, “I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for, and to see realised. But my Lord, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

If these ideals are not upheld then it will be a great loss. And we as a nation would be a great disappointment for there is nothing improper about a single word he spoke on that day.

We have been blessed to have such a remarkable giant living in our lifetime. As great as it is to have him, it is a great pity that we had a society that made Nelson Mandela necessary.

Is the ANC missing Mbeki?

*Originally appeared on the Cape Times

It would appear as if the very same people who wanted Thabo Mbeki gone are the very same people who miss him terribly now. We all remember how Malema said, “Mbeki is the best leader the ANC has ever produced… the most educated and clever,” a few weeks ago. The irony of course being that the man Malema supported, “100% Zuma”, is in office and he’s busy singing the praises of his predecessor, the man he helped get kicked out of the presidency. “A week is a long time in politics.” Harold Wilson once remarked when he was British Prime Minister those many years ago. If two weeks is a long time, then two years is a lifetime.

For Malema, a man who actively campaigned around the country against Mbeki for Zuma to say something like that speaks volumes. Louder than the trumpets that shook the walls of the Biblical city of Jericho. At one point after Zuma publicly lambasted him, Malema said Mbeki would never have done something like that, he would have taken him aside and spoken to him. Malema was excoriated for saying that because he was indirectly giving Mbeki praises above his current president.

When Thabo Mbeki was on Metro FM over the past week, the social networks lit up like I haven’t seen over him in a while. Many started calling him Dr Thabo Mbeki. Something I’ve never heard before. The comments on the social networks were going on about how intelligent he was, how great it was to hear someone who knew what he was talking about as opposed to someone who was saying what his advisors were telling him.

It is important I think to remember that the two presidents have two different styles. Mbeki didn’t live up to Mandela many said. Now that Zuma is president, they are saying he is not living up to Mbeki. Funny enough, Mandela was generous in his praise of Mbeki when he said, “No President or Prime Minister in the history of this country can claim to have done more for the people and the country than has been achieved by President Thabo Mbeki.”

What I always find interesting in regards to Mbeki is the reaction of white people when I say that Mbeki is missed. More often than not, one gets a rather violent reaction from white people. The favourite subject of choice is that Thabo Mbeki is a murderer because he killed thousand of people during the HIV AIDS crisis. He has been called an AIDS denier amongst other things. These are just some of the reactions one encounters when one starts singing Mbekis praises, particularly from white people. Remember, I’m not saying all white people, I know how reactionary we get when we mention race in SA.

What I find strange is that the people who were least affected by the HIV AIDS epidemic are the least forgiving.  Yet those who were most affected are the ones who seem to miss him more. The question then needs to be asked, do some of these white people say these things because they think we will agree with them because we were affected? Or do they think that there is something wrong with us for thinking that Mbeki is great despite his stance on AIDS? (His position was misrepresented by the way, and it’s not something I want to get into right now.)

One keeps hearing whispers in the corridors of influence from people who say, not too loudly, how much they miss the former president. He may not have been the best human being but he was a brilliant man they say.

It is clear that South Africa’s loss has been Africa’s gain. With the formation of South Sudan, and Mbeki having been at the forefront of the formation of that nation, it is clear that he has included his name on yet another page of history. This has made many people realize that they miss iZizi

25 Greatest Unscripted Scenes in Films

Love in a time of friends with benefits

*originally appeared on news24.com

I’m beginning to sound like Felicia Mabuza Suttle who when she still had a show on TV would say during every episode, “When I was in the States.” I find myself saying, “When I was in the States,” and I’m still in the States. Worse, I’ve only been here for two weeks. Barely. And I’m leaving in a day.

Anyway. I read a very interesting story on the front page of USA today, “Is Dating Dead? Less commitment and more ‘hookups’ but also more virgins: The new face of sex and relationships among young adults.” I know. Long subtitle. Is it still a subtitle if it’s longer than a tweet?

The story says that 72% of young adults “hook up”. What is hooking up? 35% say it’s kissing and touching, 12% say it’s (parental guidance is advised for the next line. Oh, sorry, this is not TV) hand-to-genital stimulation, 12% say it’s oral sex and a whopping 40% say it’s intercourse, or sex if you wish.

What the study concluded is that dating has taken a back seat and casual sex or, “friends with benefits” has taken the driving seat. The study states that because there are fewer men than women, young women are competing with each other for access to men, and often, that leads to sex sooner, says Regnerus; author of How Young Americans Meet, Mate and Think about Marrying.

Now you could say this is an American study and doesn’t reflect on South Africa. Truth is I know many people who are living like the study that I just quoted. The question is why? Of course there are seemingly logical reasons like working late. No time for relationships. Focusing on building careers. But there may be deeper reasons than that. Those are just the reasons behind the underlying problem. Yes Mr and Miss Column Commentator, no one died and made me a psychologist. But I will make my hypothesis nonetheless.

There is a pain that is caused by a perpetual search for intimacy. Although we are not lonely, we feel alone. When we are not alone and we see a happy couple, we long for what they have but still want to be alone because it’s easier. Even though it’s easier, we are still miserable. It is an interesting cycle. Yes. There are those of us who are happy being single, then there are those of us who are unhappy being single but do not want to be in relationships.

I wrote something that seemed to resonate with a lot of people on Twitter on Sunday. A little emo. Some may say it was a little more than emo. I have decided to expound on these a little bit more.

There is a profound loneliness within our generation. It is not the I want to kill myself because no one likes me kind of loneliness, nor the I’m a loser with no friends kind either. It’s the one that lays hidden behind the happiness. The emptiness that we try to fill by going to clubs in order to meet girls and guys so as to fill that void. Of course this is not to say that is what people will go there to do, as undoubtedly some of the comments will say.

We tell ourselves that before we meet the person of our dreams we have to be the person of our dreams first. Many of us are fully aware of our idiosyncrasies, and cannot begin to fathom anyone wanting anything to do with them. Often times we know that we will never be that person of our dreams. That person is as elusive as Cope victory in the upcoming local government elections.

Funny enough, we know we could be captains of industry, achieve all other goals, but the goal of achieving the ultimate self is most elusive, and therefore most fail to try to be that person.

A lot of the time, when a person falls for us, it’s probably because they think more highly of us than they ought to. But these are the fundamentals of a relationship according to another study. Relationships where the each person in the relationship puts the other on a pedestal, those last and are happier.

Maybe we don’t let others in because we’re afraid they may realise that we are even more imperfect than they think. So we push them away because a twisted logic tells us that we need to protect them from ourselves. Then we become emotionally distant because we don’t want the other person to want to come in. The sad part in all of this is that we still want them to want us. But we chose the unsatisfying “hook-up” zone.

Love is when you choose to let someone into your own little imperfect world and them letting you in theirs.

But hey, let’s hook up! I kid. I kid.

Black man, you are on your own

I wrote a blog that lamented the fact that 91% of the CEOs of some 295 companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange are white last week, and boy did I get called names. I was called a racist amongst other things. To be honest I didn’t want to carry on writing about that subject on this column, but the interest and emotion that it seemed to provoke in people left me with no choice but to tackle the subject even further. The subject of race and economics, that is.

What I have come to realise is that it is almost impossible to address the issue of race without being labelled a racist. It does not matter how reasonable one is being on the subject – a clear sign that we have not healed as a nation and it will take some time before any healing takes place. We are divided, often along racial lines; where racial lines are closing class lines emerge. The topics that people have around their dinner tables and braai stands reinforce the “us and them” attitudes. Some politicians prefer it that way, keeping us divided because this gives them power over us. They tell us to fear those people, not to trust them, not in so many words but the clues are there.

I am currently reading Doris Kearns Goodwins biography on Lincoln, Team of Rivals. (Be warned, it’s a thick book, rivalling the Bible but remarkably shorter than Gaddaffi’s speech at the United Nations last year.) At a point when America was deeply divided over the slavery issue with the South refusing to free its slaves, Lincoln made his “A House Divided” speech during his Senatorial race (which he lost). In 1858, two years later he would be propelled to the presidency on an anti-slavery platform.

He said a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Incidentally Lincoln made that speech on June 16, albeit a different year, 1858.

A divided South Africa on the economic front cannot stand. Take a look at our neighbours up north – Zimbabwe. They were split racially and economically. A politician exploited the divisions. If the private sector does not mend the economic divisions, some politician will widen them. In the end the corporate world will lose what it thought it was protecting.

We find ourselves divided when it comes to the economic front. Some white people feel that they are being robbed of their right to make money. Others feel that they are no longer wanted nor needed in South Africa because of the colour of their skin. What they fail to understand is that there are black people who feel that this freedom is worthless because they still have nothing. They still see white people prosperous while they get poorer and poorer. Each side sees themselves as worse than the other. Each side paints itself as a greater victim than the other. Some scream reverse racism while others scream economic apartheid.

The truth is there are no victims. There are many who expect manna from heaven. There will be no such thing. People were on their own during apartheid, or if you wish, the desert years. There was no manna then, there will be none now. In the words of the great Steve Biko, “Black man, you are on your own”.

We have to make things happen for ourselves, study, work and above all, make a way where there is none; that is what every celebrated captain of industry has done. To borrow and to use his words as my own, White man, you are also on your own. South Africans, you are all on your own.

Taking individual responsibility is the only thing that will end these divisions. Entitlement will widen them. South Africans, you are on your own. If we are to be a great nation we have to realise that the path to greatness is not achieved through excuses.

*originally appeared on News24.com

What Would Steve Biko Say?

I do not purport to know what he would have said today, nor do I claim to be a perfect representative of his ideas, nor a student of Biko, I am merely an admirer.

Every day when we read newspapers we see our leaders acting in ways contrary to what Steve Biko fought for. It is only proper that we ask ourselves the questions: What would he say of our leaders? What would he say of us that we allow the things that are happening, happen?

When the ANC proposed its media bill that would curtail media freedoms, I suspect he would have said, “I will continue to write what I like.”

On September 12 1977 Steve Biko died in police custody. He was only 30 years old. The good, so the saying goes, die young. It is unfortunate that we lack young people who have ideas as influential as the ones he possessed. He owned the single most dangerous mind for the oppressors, so they killed him. His mind and body may have been destroyed but his spirit stayed on. I wonder if the powers that be would have tried to kill him with the trappings of success. I don’t think he would have fallen for it.

What I know of Biko from his writings makes me believe that he would have played no part in the greed-infested politics of patronage that we are witnessing. When I asked the question “what would Steve Biko say” on Twitter, someone by the name of Zipho Mgadle, @z_ipho, cleverly used one of Biko’s most famous expressions, “Black man, you are on your own”. (Incidentally, my very second column on News24 was derived from that line, Black Man, You are on Your Own. Zipho Mgadle says Biko would say, “Poor, not politically connected black man, you are on your own.”

It is a sad truth. One wishes not to admit to oneself. If you are not politically connected, indeed, you are on your own. I believe that Biko would have been disgusted by the relentless pursuit of opulence by the elite while the masses become poorer. He would have pointed at the spiritual coldness, coupled with the gluttonous self-service of the ruling class. A class – even though they earn high government salaries – that still seeks to rob and plunder from the poor while they pay lip-service to the plight of the have-nots.

He would have spoken of the moral cowardice of South Africans, particularly the black middle class that has become too afraid to speak out because it fears losing its daily bread. You fear losing your bread, he would say, we feared for our lives, not mere bread.

One of the paragraphs I like to quote often is from philanthropist billionaire George Soros who wrote the following: “Unsure of what they stand for, people increasingly rely on money as the criterion of value. What is more expensive is considered better. The value of a work of art can be judged by the price it fetches. People deserve respect and admirations because they are rich. What used to be a medium of exchange has usurped the place of fundamental values, reversing the relationship postulated by economic theory. What used to be professions have turned into businesses. The cult of success has replaced a belief in principles. Society has lost its anchor.”

He would have spoken out against what George Soros said about “the cult of success which has replaced a belief in principles”. He would have spoken against those who have made material success a principle. In I Write What I like, Biko says, “One of the most fundamental aspects of our culture is the importance we attach to Man. Ours has always been a Man-centred society.” Yet liberation has caused us to turn into a material-possession-centred society. What car do I drive, where do I eat, where do I go on holiday? He would not have spoken against wealth, just against the fact that some have let it define them.

He would have spoken out against the “I can only talk to you if you can do something for me” attitude because our society is based on a “what can I do for you” philosophy. “This attitude to see people not as themselves but as agents for some particular function either to one’s disadvantage or advantage is foreign to us. We believe in the inherent goodness of man.”

He would have spoken against those who attain obscene amounts of wealth in a short space of time simply because of their political connections, not because of any brilliant skills they wield. Biko said, “We are prepared to have a much slower progress in an effort to make sure that all of us are marching to the same tune.” Yet today millions are left behind while the few gallop ahead.

He would have spoken out against the fact that some of the powerful think that they ought to be respected simply because they are powerful, not because they have earned our respect.

He would have spoken against the arrogance of power. He would have spoken out against the idea that if we don’t agree then we must be mortal enemies.

Above all, Steve Biko would have written whatever the hell he wanted to write.

*originally appeared on News24.com 2010-09-14 08:25

Deputy Chief Justice Moseneke opening statement before Judicial Services Commission

Opening Statement by   at the special meeting of the Judicial Services Commision held in Cape Town, 20 August 2011.

Esteemed members of the Judicial Service Commission (Commission), I thank you for attending this special meeting on such short notice .I welcome you all.

In my capacity as Deputy Chief Justice, I have convened this special meeting at the written request of the President of the Republic of South Africa, His Excellency, Mr Jacob Zuma and in accordance with to the provisions of section 178(7) of the Constitution.  That section provides that if the Chief Justice is unable to serve on the Commission, the Deputy Chief Justice acts as his or her alternate on the Commission.

In a letter to me dated 16 August 2011, the President informs that it is necessary to appoint a new Chief Justice and that in his view “Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng will be a suitable candidate to assume the position of the Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa”.

The letter records that section 174(3) of the Constitution requires that the President consult, amongst others, with the Commission on the appointment of the Chief Justice.  Pursuant to that provision the President requests the Commission to let him have its views on the suitability of Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng for appointment as Chief Justice.

I caused the letter from the President to be circulated to all members of the Commission.  Responses of some members made it clear that there are differences of opinion on the procedure the Commission must follow when it is consulted by the President as required by section 174(3) of the Constitution.

Thus, this meeting has the singular purpose of determining the procedure to be followed by the JSC when its views are required by the President on the suitability of a nominee he or she intends to appoint as Chief Justice.  Naturally, when the procedure is certain, the time, date and place where the nominee or nominees would submit to an interview have to be fixed.

Before I invite deliberation on this narrow purpose of the meeting, it is proper and necessary that I banish the elephant out of the room.  That elephant is whether I am available to be a nominee or contender or contestant for the position of Chief Justice?

Our country and its people have been exposed to considerable media and public conversations on the nomination of the Chief Justice. Certain media reports have expressed preferences on who the President should nominate.  Of course, that constitutional prerogative vests in the President.

Some organisations have gone further and mentioned me by name as a possible nominee. Others media reports and organisations have purported to nominate me or have said that they would do so if the Commission’s procedure were to permit them.

I thank those within our nation who have shown trust in me and thought that I could serve our country in that crucial position. Equally, I understand and respect the views of those who take a different view.

Let me make it clear that, much as I consider it an honour to be thought of as a potential nominee for the post of Chief Justice of this country, I have never solicited or accepted any nomination and I am not available to accept any nomination, whatever its source, now or after the deliberations of this Commission.  Therefore I am neither a hopeful, nor a nominee or a contender, present or future, for the position of Chief Justice.

In some instances, public speculation nearly suggests that my very life depends on my being appointed Chief Justice.  That is simply not so.  As matters stand, it is a rare privilege to serve my country on its highest Court.  This came after a long and rewarding career, over more than 30 years, as a candidate attorney, attorney, junior counsel, senior counsel, judge of the High Court and later of the Constitutional Court.  I am further honoured to serve as Deputy Chief Justice.  I am indeed prepared to serve on any other court below the Constitutional Court.  I would hope that the usefulness of my contribution on the Court and to the democratic project to create an equal, cohesive and socially just society does not depend on the position I hold or the position I am given or indeed the position I manage to extract for myself.  Every one of us can make a worthy contribution, whatever our position. We need not abandon good sense, the task at hand, or principle in order to get up the ladder of hierarchy or privilege.

If my reckoning is accurate, my term on the Court ends at the end of 2016.  Provided that my will and energy to serve do not wilt, I will continue to serve where I am now, dutifully and in the best sense of a patriotic judge who seeks to make a contribution towards achieving a better life for all.  To accomplish that, I need not be a Chief Justice.

Having cleared the overgrowth, I now invite debate on the issues at hand.

Cape Town, 20 August 2011

An Ode to Number Two

Here’s to no.2.

To the second man on the moon. To his second small step for mankind.

Here’s to the sidekick. Robin!

To the second letter of the alphabet, B!

Here’s to the second opinion.

To the sequel – to milking the original blockbuster.

To the silver medalists, Frankie Fredericks.

Here’s to deja vu.

Here’s to the second kiss.

Here’s to the first princess, which is just another way of saying you’re – No.2

And finally, here’s to you toilet paper, the original number two!

 

 

Improv Everywhere encourages New Yorkers to say something nice

Watch a Young Steve Jobs Introduce the Original Macintosh

Thabo Mbeki, “The Democratisation of Knowledge: the Role of Knowledge in the Betterment of Society.”

Director of the Stellenbosch University Business School and Director of Ceremonies;

Chancellor, Vice Chancellor and Principal of the University of Stellenbosch and other Members of the University;

Premier of the Western Cape and other Leaders in our various spheres of Government;

Distinguished visiting Professors, academics and esteemed foreign guests;

Fellow South Africans in all our ranks;

Dear delegates and participants;

Comrades, ladies and gentlemen:

Since we meet so early in 2012, an important year for us as Africans, because it is the historic Centenary of the African National Congress, the very first modern liberation movement on our Continent, I am honoured to welcome all participants at this important Conference and especially our foreign guests to our country.

I say this to highlight the fact that for over three centuries, the struggle to define what South Africa should be has, in addition to the deadly dialogue of arms, consisted in a contest among different schools of thought, and therefore a clash of ideas.

Obviously, in the past, this happened in the context of unequal circumstances, which made it impossible for the contradictory ideas to contend on an intellectually even playing field.

Happily, today we are a democratic country, which nevertheless battles, still, to mould all of us into one nation, sharing a common identity and a shared patriotism.

This surely means that it is in the vital interest of all our people that the historically inherited and contending understandings of “knowledge”, which contestation continues to this day, should be given free reign, each to establish its place in our society through open dialogue as “the truth”, and therefore a legitimate player in the formation of the new South Africa which is still in its infancy.

Basing myself on the announced purposes of this Conference as they appear on the website of the Stellenbosch University Business School (USB), I would like to congratulate the Business School, USB, for taking what I am convinced is a daring and timely initiative.

I am convinced that the Conference you begin today is daring because, in my view, it must necessarily address the fundamental issue immanent in all philosophical discourse, from ancient times, to date – what is knowledge!

I believe that, in this context, the USB initiative is also daring because it poses the interesting task that you must consider the thesis that it is possible to have “undemocratised knowledge”, and therefore that you should discuss the challenge to achieve “the democratisation of knowledge”.

The convening of this Conference is also timely because it is self-evident that ‘knowledge’, regardless of the philosophical debates about its meaning, and indeed because of this, has established itself as a critical driver with regard to the human objective to achieve what the USB has described as “the betterment of society”.

I believe that in this context, the theme of this ‘Knowledge Management Conference’ presents the distinguished participants and delegates with the challenge, among others, to answer the questions:

• is there an objective social existence described as “objective reality”, which exists independent of and outside individual human consciousness and cognition, and is therefore, in principle, freely accessible to all who seek to access “knowledge”;

• in reality, does everybody have the “freedom to access” this “knowledge” about this supposed “objective reality”; and,

• does the possibility not exist that some in society could have such control over the ways and means and possibility to access this “knowledge” so that they determine both who knows what, and what society in general knows, which it would believe constitutes an accurate appreciation of the ‘objective reality’ to which we have referred.

In the context of everything I have said I must assure the Conference that I will not venture into the various interesting and contentious philosophical debates relating to matters of epistemology and gnoseology.

I say this to acknowledge that what this Conference is about is the management and use of knowledge in the contemporary global setting, specifically to examine its “democratisation” and its role “in the betterment of society”.

Obviously this is a subject that is close to our hearts as Africans.

This is because we have to confront the urgent and difficult challenges to eradicate poverty, underdevelopment and gross social inequality as quickly as possible, and to achieve lasting and equitable social and national cohesion and the continuous improvement of the life conditions of all our African people in the context of growing and transforming economies.

Accordingly, for very practical (utilitarian) reasons, we need access to such “knowledge” as would indeed accelerate our advance towards the achievement of the goals I have mentioned.

This poses the challenge to distinguish between what we as Africans ‘know’, which is therefore the ‘knowledge’ we would use to change our condition for the better, and what is the ‘objective truth’, which might very well be at variance with what we know as the ‘knowledge’ at our disposal.

This raises the important issue of epistemology with which you are familiar, of the distinction between what society ‘knows’ and assumes constitutes ‘knowledge’, and what can logically and independently be established as ‘the truth’, and therefore ‘objective reality’, regardless of whether we know it or not.

This posits the thesis that it is possible for individuals and societies to share an understanding about various processes and phenomena which would constitute their bank of ‘knowledge’, while such ‘knowledge’ would be different from, and even contrary to the ‘objective truth’ relating to these very same processes and phenomena.

Thus it becomes possible for action to be taken, intended to achieve ‘the betterment of society’, based on what we can characterise as ‘false knowledge’, because it is at variance with ‘the objective truth’.

As many in this hall will know, this obliges us to refer to the contentious question relating to what is called the ‘criterion of truth’, which bears on the philosophical question – is there an objective measure that can be used to establish what is ‘true knowledge’ and what is ‘false knowledge’!

Obviously, this obliges us to revert back to the fundamental question of epistemology and gnoseology – what is knowledge!

In this context, in his “Memoir” entitled “Known and Unknown”, the former US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, says that at a Press Conference he said:

“Reports that say something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me because as we know, there are known knows: there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns: that is to say there are some things [we know] we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult one.”

[Donald Rumsfeld: “Known and Unknown: A Memoir.” Sentinel, Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2011. Author’s Note, xiii.]

Rumsfeld wrote that he made the comments we have cited to raise “a larger point about the limits of human knowledge”.

In summary, in his ‘Memoir’, Rumsfeld, an important member of the ruling establishment in the United States for at least four decades, makes five (5) critical points.

These are that those who want to succeed as rulers, and therefore decisive players in shaping society, must:

• understand the critical importance of ‘knowledge’, relevant to the process of governance;

• act on the basis that government should make its interventions based on extant ‘knowledge’;

• prepare options to give the rulers the necessary flexibility to respond to developments which might not be foreseen, given the limitations of extant knowledge, but whose outer perimeters are known, but are not part of the reality which requires an immediate response;

• ‘think outside the box’, and therefore prepare for potential eventualities which are not based on any realities whose understanding can be derived from observable and probable developments, or extrapolations from these, and thus position themselves to respond to any and all ‘surprises’; and,

• therefore that, at all times and in all circumstances, bearing in mind the inevitable variability of these circumstances, they have to influence all the ‘knowledge’ that reaches the people, so that these masses sustain their confidence in the rulers they would have elected.

All this relates directly to the purposes of this Conference to the extent that it has set itself the objective to discuss “the role of knowledge in the betterment of society”.

Those among us who are familiar with the United States media will know of the debate which erupted when, towards the end of this past year, one of the standard-bearers of US conservative opinion, The Weekly Standard (TWS), challenged the objectivity of various US “fact checking” media outlets.

In its December 19, 2011 edition, TWS carried a lead article written by its Editor, Mark Hemingway, entitled “Lies, Damned Lies, and ‘Fact Checking’: The liberal media’s latest attempt to control the discourse”.

In this article Hemingway wrote:

“While it was always difficult in practice, once upon a time journalists at least paid obeisance to the idea of reporting the facts, as opposed to commenting on “narratives” –…Let alone being responsible for creating and debunking them.

 

“But today’s fact checkers are largely uninterested in emphasizing the primacy of information…

 

“What’s going on here should be obvious enough. With the rise of cable news and the Internet, traditional media institutions are increasingly unable to control what political rhetoric and which narratives catch fire with the public. Media fact-checking operations aren’t about checking facts so much as they are about a rear-guard action to keep inconvenient truths out of the conversation.”

On December 22, 2011, Glenn Kessler responded in The Washington Post to these charges in an article headed “The biggest Pinochios of 2011”.

Among other things he wrote:

“Fact checkers are under assault!…

 

“Fact checking is a complement, not a replacement. Good beat reporters obviously are well placed to analyze issues and spot falsehoods, and that’s an essential part of their jobs. But, especially in a political season, it is difficult to analyze every claim and counterclaim while also writing day-to-day stories about the news. Fact checkers, by contrast, can dig deeply into an issue or even a single statement. We can help explain, at length, how a politician justifies his or her assertion and whether there is much of a factual basis for it.

 

“In other words, the information we provide adds to the rich menu of choices that readers of The Washington Post find when they come to our Web site, in addition to sustained political coverage, beat reporting and various blogs. Sometimes you may choke on the meal we serve, but each day the food (for thought) will be different.”

I have imposed on you what appears to be a localised debate relating to the US media to make a few points which I believe this Conference must discuss.

One of these is that this debate, immediately between the US publications, The Weekly Standard and The Washington Post, makes the statement that different political agendas necessarily signify different and conflicting bodies of “knowledge”.

It also makes the statement that this “knowledge” disjuncture will necessarily result in different national government policies, depending on which “knowledge” faction has access to state power.

Similarly, it makes the critically important point that it matters who has the capacity and ability to persuade the public about which “knowledge” is “true”, and which “false”!

It affirms the fundamental proposition of this Conference that “knowledge” is a fundamental driver in the process of social transformation, and therefore, ineluctably, a critical player in terms of the objective to achieve “the betterment of society”.

In 1880, reflecting on Charles Darwin’s seminal treatise, The Origin of the Species, the British biologist, Thomas Huxley, wrote: “It is the customary fate of new truths to begin as heresies and to end as superstitions…Against any such a consummation let us all devoutly pray: for the scientific spirit is of more value than its products, and irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.”

Later, in 1885, he said: “Science…commits suicide when it adopts a creed.”

I am also certain that Albert Einstein was absolutely correct when he said:

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”

I am insisting on what I have said to emphasise four epistemological propositions that the assertions are correct that:

(i) there exist “objective truths” which help to govern human behaviour;

(ii) however, human cognition described as science, does not allow for “absolute and permanent truths”;

(iii) this is because all known scientific “truths” are inherently capable of falsification, because;

(iv) the universe and all forms of material and human existence are infinite in terms of their expression, and thus the discovery of “the truth”, and therefore the accumulation of “knowledge”, constitute an unending journey of discovery of the regularities of this objective material and social reality, which exists independent of individual human cognition.

I have made these comments to underline the reality that though this Conference might correctly avoid issues that relate to epistemology and gnoseology, these should nevertheless remain ‘at the back of our minds’.

I would like to believe that what I have said surely means that this Conference must address a number of vitally important questions.

Some of these are:

• in the contemporary global context, especially as it relates to Africa, given that this Conference is taking place on our Continent, what does “the betterment of society” mean;

• what “knowledge” do our decision-makers need to inform them as they strive to achieve such “betterment”;

• who will produce such “knowledge”;

• who will ensure that this “knowledge” reaches the decision-makers;

• who will act to ensure that these decision-makers do not act on the basis of what, in this context, as we have been alerted by the debate between The (US) Weekly Standard and The Washington Post, we can characterise as “false knowledge”;

• what possibility is there to guarantee the independence of the “producers of knowledge”, such as the Universities, so that they enjoy the freedom to produce the objective “knowledge” all social development needs; and,

• what should be done to ensure that such “objective knowledge” is propagated, including through the mass media, while necessarily allowing that all other alternative “knowledge”, even though it is not part of “what is generally accepted”, is allowed unrestricted freedom to express itself, able to challenge “established and generally accepted truths”, including through all the available media.

I am certain that this requires that we descend from the possibly abstruse world of high philosophy to confront the challenges indeed of the ‘democratisation and role of knowledge in the betterment of society’.

I am certain that when we have sought to consider these issues as ‘activists’ of one kind or another, surely we must have arrived at very disturbing conclusions about the actual global contemporary reality of the management of “knowledge” relative both to the ‘democratisation of knowledge’ and the use of knowledge ‘for the betterment of society’.

I would like to suggest that, in important respects, “knowledge” has become ever less ‘democratised’ and even more compromised as an instrument for the ‘betterment of society’.

I say this being perfectly aware of what seems to be the general view that the “social media” enabled by the Internet constitute a defining intervention which both ‘democratises knowledge’ and facilitates its use ‘to better society’.

However, the questions I believe you must answer are (i) whether all this truly represents the ‘democratisation of knowledge’ and (ii) whether such ‘democratisation’ correctly defines the ‘role of knowledge in the betterment of society’!

I believe that all this raises the challenge to answer a question I raised earlier – what is “knowledge” and, consequently, relative to the theme of this Conference, what “knowledge” are we talking about, and who ‘manages’ it!

Accordingly, I would suggest that in the context of the challenging themes of this important Conference, you take some time to inquire into such specific matters which relate to ‘the betterment of global human society’ as:

(i) the obligations of the developed world towards Africa, in the context of what the influential British magazine, ‘The Economist’, in an ‘illustrative’ cover page in May 2000, characterised as ‘The hopeless continent’;

[The false ‘knowledge’ about Africa arising from such prejudiced reporting has, inter alia, discouraged investors from making their capital available for the development of Africa, thus serving as a self-fulfilling prediction.]

(ii) the 2003 war against Iraq;

[The false ‘knowledge’ was propagated that Iraq possessed ‘weapons of mass destruction’, which was not true, but was used to launch a war which has generated immense problems both for Iraq and, at least, the wider Middle East region.]

(iii) the 2011 activation of the concept of the “responsibility to protect” relating to the enforcement of the so-called “no-flight zone” concerning Libya;

[The false ‘knowledge’ was advanced that the Khaddafi regime was about to slaughter millions of civilians. This was used to justify the imposition of a ‘no-flight-zone’ over Libya, which served as a cover to overthrow the Libyan Government and impose a regime approved by the Western Powers, in their interest.]

(iv) the behaviour of global financial capital, which led to the 2008 financial and economic crisis, from which the world economy has not yet recovered, and which resulted in the impoverishment of millions throughout the world;

[Financial capital communicated false ‘knowledge’ especially about US mortgage loans, the so-called sub-prime lending, which nearly resulted in an more punishing global economic depression.]

(v) the role of the international Firms of Accountants in the context of Corporate governance;

[Major global Accounting Firms communicated false ‘knowledge’ about then major firms, such as Enron, which resulted in the loss of billions of dollars by honest investors, including workers’ pension funds.]

(vi) successive scares about world health;

[The Council of Europe has asserted that false ‘knowledge’ was propagated during 2009, which resulted in billions of tax-payer dollars being spent in many countries to respond to a fictional ‘swine flu epidemic’, which benefited the globally dominant and highly profitable pharmaceutical companies.]

(vii) the year 2000 Y2K scare.

[The false ‘knowledge’ that the world would seize-up because of an end-of-century computer mal-function proved to be unfounded, having no scientific basis.]

I mention these particular instances only as examples, and most certainly not as a comprehensive catalogue of instances which illustrate the grave challenge all humanity faces to confront the critical issues that are the subject of this important Conference, of the management of knowledge in the interests of genuine human advancement.

In my view, all these instances confirm the timeliness of precisely the two important themes of this Conference, certainly in their macro-social implications, that “knowledge” should be ‘democratised’ and should be used to ‘better’ the human condition.

At the same time, they illustrate the destructive potential of the abuse of “knowledge” by those who exercise preponderant power, to propagate their version of “knowledge” for selfish ends, as exposed in the example we cited earlier, relating to the contest between The (US) Weekly Standard and The Washington Post.

Thus the question arises organically – does it not stand to reason that the ‘knowledge’ generally available to society to effect its own ‘betterment’ is in fact such ‘knowledge’ as the preponderant powers would permit to be ‘available’, in their own interest!

I say this because of the frightening reality contemporary society faces, of the capacity of a small but powerful minority of humanity, to determine what society should ‘know’, which passes as ‘knowledge’.

The world community of nations has also accepted the notion that there are various elements of ‘knowledge’ to which should be attached private proprietary rights, thus making such ‘knowledge’ a profitable commodity for those who can legitimately claim ownership of such ‘intellectual property’.

This is without regard to whether such ‘knowledge’ is required urgently to achieve the ‘betterment of society’, overriding the concerns of a few to exploit such new ‘knowledge’ as they might have developed, to accumulate for themselves whatever financial gain.

In this regard, the distinguished delegates will be familiar with the debate that has raged for many years concerning the 1994 WTO “Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights”, TRIPS, especially relating to affordable drugs and medicines for poor people, the majority of humanity.

As happens in all democratic countries, during our years in Government, naturally there was always a lively debate in our country about the policies of the Government.

In part this was naturally driven by different political and ideological perspectives.

However, in part, the various debates arose from differences about ‘knowledge’, and specifically ‘knowledge’ about various elements of South African social reality.

To give just one example of this, we had people who argued that apartheid ended in South Africa in 1994 when we had our first democratic elections.

Others, including the ruling party, argued that these elections had indeed ended white minority political domination, but that the socio-economic legacy of colonialism and apartheid remained the defining feature of our reality.

The response to this was that by insisting on the fact of the legacy of colonialism and apartheid, we were ‘playing the race card’, directly contrary to the Constitutional directive to create a non-racial society.

Thus the two contending factions sought to achieve the hegemony of their respective presentations of ‘knowledge’ about South African social reality, arguing for the use of their respective representations to determine national policy in many critical areas.

Naturally, each claimed that its body of ‘knowledge’ about the country was what was needed to achieve ‘the betterment of our society’.

This limited example about the importance of ‘knowledge’, in this case in our specific context, emphasises the critical relevance of this Conference and the topics it is scheduled to discuss.

Everything I have said underlines the need for the democratisation of knowledge precisely to ensure that knowledge, the collective output of human thought and inquiry, and therefore the property of humanity as a whole, is readily available to better the human condition, and is used for this noble purpose.

The questions remain to be answered:

• in what should the vitally necessary democratisation of knowledge consist?;

• what should be done to create and maintain the necessary space for the production of new knowledge and the free propagation of all knowledge, which must be underpinned by the existence of the political order freely to engage in intellectual inquiry, and therefore the contest of ideas, and the unrestricted propagation of all knowledge?;

• what should be done to help ensure that everybody who is a role-player in the struggle for the betterment of society, including government and civil society, has access to the required knowledge? and,

• what should be done to empower these role-players so that they do indeed use this knowledge for the betterment of society?

I would imagine that when you discuss these matters, you will have no choice but to reflect on such important and relevant matters as:

• the financing and empowerment of Universities to serve as excellent and autonomous centres of learning, research and communication of knowledge;

• the expansion of the cadre of young intellectuals empowered to create new knowledge;

• investment in research and development in mathematics, the natural sciences, engineering, technology and the social sciences, including through innovation centres;

• attracting back to Africa, and other developing regions, the domestic intelligentsia which has emigrated to the developed Western countries;

• the establishment of Centres of Excellence in regions such as Africa, to ensure that our poor countries pool their limited resources rather than spread these thinly and in an unaffordable manner in too many countries;

• the reinforcement of the democratic setting to enable the free communication of knowledge, including the space for the propagation of contending ideas;

• consideration of the ways and means by which this can be achieved, including through the democratisation of the media and the development of alternative media especially to liberate the communication of knowledge from the imperatives which affect the commercial media, contrary to such strange practices as “embedded journalists”, as happened during the Iraq War; and,

• developing such public thirst for knowledge as would constrain and limit the capacity of the most powerful in contemporary society to dictate to society what should be known.

As this learned gathering knows, in 1961, as he was about to relinquish power, then President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, spoke out against the concentration of illegitimate social power in what he described as the “military-industrial complex”.

Among other things he said: “The total influence (of this complex) – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government…The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist…

 

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

 

“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

 

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”

The danger to which Eisenhower drew attention, fifty years ago, about the deleterious effect of the national security state and the military-industrial complex on the freedom to generate knowledge, and the use of this knowledge for the public good, has not abated.

To the contrary, it has continuously worsened, compounded especially by the related centralisation of power in the hands of a few both through the economic, political and social role of financial capital and a global media controlled by very few, among others.

In this context, relating also to the challenges we have mentioned concerning developments in the field of the development of drugs and medicines, I would also like to cite a statement made by Dr Marcia Angell, a former editor-in-chief of the eminent medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, and later Senior Lecturer at the Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

In a May/June 2010 article in the Boston Review, she wrote:

“Medical centers (in the US) increasingly act as though meeting industry’s needs is a legitimate purpose of an academic institution. In addition to grant support, academic researchers now have a variety of other financial ties to the companies that sponsor their work. They serve as consultants to the same companies whose products they evaluate,…agree to be the listed authors of articles ghost-written by interested companies, promote drugs and devices at company-sponsored symposia…Many also have equity interest in sponsoring companies…Increasingly, industry is setting the agenda in academic centers, and that agenda has more to do with industry’s mission than the mission of the academy…Conflicts of interest in academic medicine have serious consequences, and it is time to stop making excuses for them.”

I believe that convened here today, at this important Conference hosted by the Stellenbosch University Business School are eminent thinkers who are as determined as President Dwight D. Eisenhower was to liberate the production of knowledge from stultifying control by big public and private power, thus to defend the perspective which Thomas Huxley advanced in 1887 when he said, regarding the expansion of the frontiers of knowledge:

 

“Our business in every generation it to reclaim a little more land, to add something to the extent and the solidity of our possessions.”

The Stellenbosch University Business School and you who are gathered at this Conference are absolutely correct that given the immense contemporary global challenges, including as they affect the poor of the world, knowledge must be democratised and must be used for the betterment of all humanity.

The difficult question you will have to answer through your deliberations is whether you dispose of the courage to speak out as Eisenhower did, and as Marcia Angell has, to assert the sanctity of the development of new knowledge and the free propagation of knowledge, daring to point the way forward about what should be done in this regard.

As I began this presentation, I mentioned the fact of our celebration, eight days ago, of the Centenary of the ANC. As we, the Africans, enter into our Second Century of the existence of an organised modern movement for national liberation, we would surely do well to join you, the African and international progressive intelligentsia, to give practical meaning to the famous Chinese saying:

“Let a hundred flowers bloom: let a hundred schools of thought contend!”

I am honoured to wish your Conference success.

Thank you.

Trevor Noah on the Tonight Show With Jay Leno

Hi Fatsos, I mean, Hi Cape Town.

Well, well, well. Who would have thought that the Mother City would be the fattest city in South Africa? After all, you lot in Cape Town have all the outdoor activity thingamajigs you like to boast about. You constantly try to make us folk from Johannesburg feel inferior because we don’t have access to nature’s bounty as much as you do. You do things like walking up Lion’s Head, running along the beach front in Sea Point, surf, cycling in Tokai Forest and countless other outdoor activities. You are blessed with an orgy of nature’s goodness. And oh, how could I forget the gyms? And yet, you’re still remarkably fat.

I read Sunday’s City Press tackling a really huge story; South Africa’s fat problem under the huge headline, Has Democracy Made us Fat? The State of our Weight.

Here are some scary stats about how fat we’ve become as a nation. Just hold on, I’m coming to your fat stats Cape Town. According to the City Press, 61% of South Africans are overweight or obese. 70% of women over 35 are also overweight. 25% of teens and 17% of children under nine years of age are overweight. As people have access to a little more money and as fast food outlets are being built, these figures are bound increase (don’t excuse the pun).

And here is a stat that will shock the ladies; apparently 56% of you are overweight. They don’t say anything about guys. We’re basically becoming the America of Africa. Fat people everywhere. (Whispers, “I see fat people.”)

This is not good news. Not that there is anything wrong with being big, what is wrong is ill-health which results from being overweight.

What is really going to blow your hat off Cape Town are these stats which rank the fatness of South African cities. You rank fattest. Yes, apparently you are fatties. All the models in Camps Bay have created the illusion that you lot are skinny when you are not. Get rid of the models and you’ll see your true fatness.

Cape town has the highest incidence of overweight people in South Africa. The rankings according to City Press: Cape Town 72%, it is followed by Durban at 68% which is followed by the city with the most fast food joints in the country, Johannesburg with an overweight incidence of 59%. Durban is slacking of at a distant 52%.

Cape Town is a pretty well run city, unfortunately, it doesn’t run though. I didn’t have access to the detailed stats, but my guess would be that most of the obese would be found in the Cape Flats. Where you find the poor. Fat is not a exclusive to the wealthy.

I tweeted these stats yesterday, and gentleman by the Twitter name @Sentletse tweeted, “@HelenZille will say it’s a measure of poverty eradication RT @khayadlanga: Cape Town has the highest incidence of fat people with 72%”. Amusing it must be said.

It would be unfair to blame fast food outlets. In fact it is an easy out for the government to think about banning them, it is also an easy out for parents. The truth is we have become lazy. If you eat and work out, there won’t be such a huge problem. We need to regulate ourselves; we don’t need government banning fast food joints. If anything, the government should be enforcing physical education in schools and creating an environment for citizens without money to exercise outdoors freely without fear of being mugged or other such things.

A culture of physical activity needs to be encouraged. Unfortunately our governments and organisations are centred around ensuring that citizens revolve their lives around going to work, consuming products and then going home to vegetate in from of television sets.

Working out for me means taking my laptop outside and working. If this is what working out is like for you too, we’re still going to be a bit fatter.