In celebration of Slavery, Apartheid and Bantu Education . . . . . . . NOT!

A certain journalist, author and African-American gentleman celebrates being an American in a book whose title I cannot remember but which caused a stir a few years ago when it came out or at least when it hit the South African bookshops. The name of the gentlemen and the title of his book are not the point; the point is the celebration of his American-ness or rather, the words he uses to express that celebration: “thank God I’m an American”. Nothing wrong with that; I have been heard to express similar sentiment about being a South African, since 1994, that is.

In the book, the gentleman states that he is grateful that his ancestor(s) survived the perilous journey across the Atlantic and the ravages of slavery on their arrival in the land of the free. He is grateful that they did not succumb to scurvy or wanton killing aboard the slave ship; or that they did not find themselves on the wrong side of the massa’s rifle. In his celebration and gratitude he makes it clear that he is even happier that he was not born in Africa.

There is a context to this book and the sentiments that are expressed by the author. The book was apparently inspired by the scenes witnessed by the author while as a journalist, he covered and reported on the genocide in Rwanda. He describes how while standing on the banks of some river in Rwanda, he saw bloated discoloured dead human bodies floating down the river like logs. I am not quoting from the book; I am paraphrasing at great liberty. This gruesome experience leads to the celebration of being an American as opposed to being a citizen of one of those vicious West African countries. My interpretation: “thank God for the slave trade”. This brings me to the point of this blah, blah, bloody blah . . . But before that, one more story.

Another journalist/columnist, this time a South African, in his letter chastising the present minister of basic education for all manner of faults not the least her cordial relationship with one Julius Malema; celebrates the “good” virtues of Bantu Education. He says that the current lot in government when they took over some 15 years ago threw out the Bantu Education water with the good values, respect and discipline baby. He states that respect and discipline were one of the good virtues of Apartheid/Bantu Education and these, he pleads, we should have kept and in fact advises the minister to restore them. When addressing discipline, he promptly reminds the minister that it is her ilk in the ANC that did away with corporal punishment in schools and threatened any teacher who administers it with jail (without passing begin or collecting 200). My interpretation: “there is a lot that was good about Apartheid/Bantu Education”.

I am somewhat of a zealot when it comes to these things. You see, I struggle to see how any good can come from evil. Having caught the tail end of Bantu Education, I am no expert on the system. When 1994 came, I was already a father of a 3 year old girl (yes, I started farming early). I managed to get through school ok and gained access to tertiary education. I do not however celebrate Apartheid, Bantu Education or any of the so-called good virtues of that system. Those of us Black people who made it, did not do so because of Bantu Education but in spite of it. The terrible high school that I attended (which for reasons that can only exist under Apartheid, was very popular) boasts some impressive individuals among its past students. Take the daughter of a mineworker who now holds a BSc Honours from Kings College London among her numerous qualifications least of which is a medical degree from South Africa’s top university. She doesn’t celebrate Apartheid, Bantu Education, the migrant labour system or the terrible school. She celebrates her father who insisted on her being the best she can be. She celebrates her mother who nurtured and inspired her unbreakable spirit.

The so-called good virtues of Apartheid or any of its monstrous sub-inventions deserve a better analysis than they routinely receive in our media and academic writing. We need analysis and commentary that appreciates the enormity of the task before the political leadership while decrying poor leadership. It will not matter how much work the government and schools put into solving the challenges faced by the education system. What would matter is for parents to take a page out of that old mineworker’s book of encouragement and support for our children. Of course it makes for great politics to make speeches and debate the issues and to point fingers. Unfortunately it is in that time that we will continue to produce school leavers who are only qualified to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. Maybe that is not such a big deal when our own are taken care of and poised for greater things in those other schools where teaching and learning happens all year through.

Of writers, blacks and a tragedy

I am still trying to figure out what it means to be black in this brand new 16 years old South Africa. Go ahead and snigger all you like. This is my question, my journey and you don’t have to come with if you don’t want to. What is the one thing that makes me black today? Here? I am sure that I know the answer to these questions - Almost as sure as I am that I don’t quite know.

Ok, I went on this journey after I read Mr Sandile Memela’s latest post on the “Thought Leader Blog”. He is upset (at least that how it read to me) about the ever growing tendency for black writers to trash all that is black and that is government. He is onto their stuff though, at least that is what he writes. He is onto these sell-outs (this is my word) – he has worked out that the reason that they do this (trash other blacks and the government) is so that the white publishers would publish their stuff. The alternative for them, it seems, would be to be a blogger like me, with a dedicated readership of 3 (all dear friends).

I go through the blog and think: he is onto something here. Then suddenly I realise that the very things that he admonishes Xolela Mangcu, Moeletsi Mbeki and others for doing, becomes the very peg on which he hangs his critic coat. I could live with that. You know they say one should not do as another does but rather as the other says. Learn from other’s mistakes and so on. Then I set out to find out more about this Mr Memela. There is a helpful bit on the top right-hand corner of the blog that lets you a little into who he is and where he hangs out during the day. It is when he described himself as a “government funk” that the hairs on the back of my neck stood on end. I still thought that I could deal with all that, as I should. My view is, you learn from others. You don’t even have to agree with them – just don’t repeat their howlers for to re-howl is to be stupid and you don’t want to be caught being stupid, right?

Mr Memela also writes that he is tolerant of views that don’t necessarily fit in with his own. I then think: come on, now you just shitting me aren’t you? You clearly don’t like the ideas of Mangcu and Mbeki. You actually call them unpleasant names, right there in your post; you call them such and such, and this and that. You can’t stand these okes or their ideas at least. You write clearly how they are the cancer that is going to kill the black writer. So what am I to learn from you and them now? I haven’t a clue. What I am painfully realising is how difficult being black has become since we started calling ourselves black as opposed to being designated as such by some or other authority.

It seems to me that the views that one may hold – one being black that is – must be carefully checked lest they do not accord with those of the black majority or the government. As I read Mr Memela’s piece and the comments in support of it, I fantasised about writing a book under a title: “the colour of ideas”. I also got stuck on some of the concepts and phrases in the post, so I realised that I need to read more and learn more. I am stuck when it comes to the word “intellectual” even more so if it is a pseudo kind. I am as a general proposition attracted to ideas and thoughts. I am fascinated by how minds work – all kinds of minds. I am no intellectual. I think about things, events, people, my children and the future – among many things that cross my mind. There are those whom I regard as intellectuals but given the use of the term these days, they may well not be; or they may be pseudo.

I am all for disagreements. Especially among black people – intellectuals or not. I criticise and have criticised the government in this space. I do so for the same reason I criticised and disagreed with Prof. Jansen: because I know they can be much better, good as they may be. I would have liked Mr Memela to take these offending black writers on. I would have liked him to engage the ideas and thoughts they express. I would have liked him to engage those ideas and reduce them to nought as they should be. It is a pity his critic stops at name calling and denigration.

This, is the real tragedy of being a black writer.

Government of the People, by the People, for the People

Does this expression still have any meaning? Government around the world is generally by proxy, often on behalf of the people hardly ever for them. Once in a while there is real interest in the politics and the politicians and then the people go out in greater than usual numbers, to vote. Generally, the voters are less than 40% of the population or hover around that. This statistic gets even more interesting if you look at how many of those who are eligible to vote, do register to vote and actually vote, come election day.

But that is only the beginning of the story as it were, more so in relation to our own political system. Of course we had a large turnout for the last elections – people love a good drama, especially when they can become part of it. There was excitement around the elections and some optimism that there will be some change. Will we have the same excitement 4 years from now? Or will it be the case of “the ANC always wins and they will win again then? What will be the draw-card then?

Whichever way I look at it, it seems to me that the majority generally impose their political will and their political candidates on the minority, more so under the proportional representation election system. Like most compromises (the national anthem comes to mind here), proportional representation was meant to leave everyone equally unhappy. By everyone I mean those who would have preferred winner takes all versus those who did not want to be overrun by a black government and therefore sought to have a way of keeping some seats in parliament. Some argued that “winner takes all” electoral system would have polarised the nation and would not be in line with the Madiba nation-healing magic. Proportional representation on the other hand would ensure that there will be a place for everyone under the parliamentary sun. I am not sure whether proportional representation did not result in the very polarisation that the peace negotiators attempted to avoid. That however is a subject of another post.

Consider this if you will: Once elected, members of the legislature go about the business of electing the president who then goes about the business of appointing the executive. Firstly, the legislature is the legislature of the Republic of South Africa and all its people regardless of their errant and somewhat irresponsible voting habits. Similarly, the president and the executive are all ours, warts and all. But this is not so under proportional representation. Each politician is answerable and accountable to the party that put her name on the list. Each politician can (and many have been), be removed from parliament and stripped of her title should the party believe it appropriate. What about the people, I ask. The party is in charge and what the party says goes. Does it mean that the Minister of Justice is in his position to carry out the policies and dictates of the party? I will need to go back and read the oath of office that the president, the members of the executive and members of the legislature take when they assume their respective honourable offices. Maybe there is something in there that allows them to heed the call of the party rather than that of the people, I don’t know.

Do they not swear to serve, protect and to uphold the constitution of the Republic of South Africa – without fear, favour, prejudice or political affiliation consideration? This of course goes back to the party list. The people may have whoever political representative they want; as long as such representative is on the list. I don’t know.

Consider the position of the president of the Republic. As soon as he is elected by the legislature, he then gives up his membership of the legislature and he then occupies the presidency. This I am told is because he now belongs to all of us regardless of his party political affiliation. Now, we all remember the last president and how he “was recalled”. Of course that is not technically true. The constitution only provides for the resignation and the impeachment of the president. We of course know that he chose to resign. Had he not, that would have been some dramatic development in the country’s history – that was not to be though. The man facilitated his own recall as it were. All of this is pretty confusing to me.

I do not know when it will be appropriate for this nation to get out of the meantime of nation-building and step into robust constitutional democracy, where the people say who, say when, say how and say how long. I don’t know when that time will be and whether such would necessarily be the right thing to do.

What I do know and believe is that government should only be of, for and by the people. I am also beginning to lean towards a belief that proportional representation gets in the way of the people and their right and duty to govern.
Is it not so that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians and their parties?

I don’t know.

Isn't it time we said enough?

Who exactly, is the media responsible to? Who do they account to for their actions? I believe there is some ombud or similar body that ordinary Joe Public like me may complain to and hopefully get some redress. The redress is often in the form of an apology and comes after the damage is done. I don’t know what the alternative should be so don’t ask me. The media houses are also businesses and the nature of such beasts is to make some money for their shareholders and other beneficiaries.

To think that somehow the media can (especially in an overzealous democracy like ours) be expected to behave honourably is probably foolhardy. So, I do not wish to write to the editor, be he or she of the public kinds or otherwise (ok maybe I should). I also do not wish to engage the services of some watch-dog. I wish to engage the media itself and appeal to the human beings (believe you me they are in there somewhere) inside the media houses. I do this with the full appreciation of all the other imperatives that they seek to heed, not least of which ought to be, at least in my mind, to be human.

In order to illustrate my plea (yes, it is coming just bear with me) to the media houses, I upfront and unreservedly beg the indulgence of the Sowetan newspaper. You see, this newspaper ran two articles in the Friday, 20 November 2009 edition about Mokgadi Semenya. Even before I read either, I found myself wondering: at what point do we collectively say that she has gone through enough already? I of course appreciate that the matters Sowetan reported on are news-worthy. I also appreciate that there are those who would like to know the matters reported on. However, I can’t help but wonder whether this and similar reports are really necessary or indeed fair. Maybe fairness is not and should not be test or what the media may or may not report.

Mokgadi is in her teens (very late teens but teens nonetheless) she has her whole life ahead of her. A life throughout which she will always have the debacle of her sex (please, pretty pleas not gender) constantly overshadowing all else that she does. At what point does the media say: folks, we have milked this one for all it is worth, maybe it is time we let it go. How about we let the poor kid go? Please, do not get me wrong, I have conceded in this very space that what was callously done to Mokgadi is of great benefit to our society. What happened to her has raised one of the issues our society refuses to deal with. What I regret is how the media went about it. To this day, the tests apparently performed on Mokgadi are still referred to as “gender tests”. Folks, Mokgadi’s gender needs no testing. She is a woman, that is her gender. She has lived her life as a woman (girl if you like). About this there should be little doubt. Her sex, like the sex of many of us, is another story. I have dealt with this issue in this space too.

This is not me dictating to our media what to print and what not to print (as if I would; as if they would care). I am suggesting that the (salacious) details of Mokgadi’s sex have surely passed their sell-by date. Whatever it is that the IAAF, ASA, SASCOC, Mr Malema, Mrs Madikizela-Mandela and whoever else, are in the future going to do or say about the tests, is no longer relevant, at least in my view. This to me takes the broader social issues no further and adds nothing to the fabric of our society (if there is such a thing). What the continued reporting of these details does do, is to inflict unknown pain on a human being that we all agree is innocent. I am yet to come across a report (not an op-ed or editorial) that seeks to re-assure Mokgadi, many others like her and us that she is not a freak. None of the reports I have seen even attempt to give her the benefit of the doubt.
The media plays both the information and the education role. It has the privilege and benefit of some of our brightest human beings. I appeal to them to use this opportunity to educate the rest of us on the matters and complex issues raised by the misfortune of Mokgadi. This, in the stead of constantly hanging her out to dry, as it were.

I ask that the media leverage its immense influence to teach the rest of us, and that way reassure Mokgadi that there is nothing wrong with her. That is the truth, there is nothing wrong with her, she is not a freak. She should not (like Saartjie Baartman many years before her) be put on show, probed, poked and debased. We need this message to come out loud and clear from our media.
We need some education on Sex, Gender and Identity rather than perpetuation of lies, inaccuracies and misinformation. Nothing illustrates the fundamental and crucial differences between sex and gender than this whole regrettable episode in Mokgadi’s life.

We cannot afford to miss these opportunities to contribute meaningfully to the development of our society. Especially the development of a culture of respect, tolerance and care.

We can do this, with the help of each one of us but more so with the help of those best placed to help – our beloved fourth estate.

Prof. Jansen’s blurred vision: A response to Rhoda Kadalie

Forgiveness is a privilege enjoyed by those who offer contrition; a gift from the wronged to the wrongdoer, with reconciliation as a goal. A goal that ought to raise both the wronged and the wrongdoer above the wrong. This is my understanding of the concept of forgiveness. If you disagree with this understanding then I doubt very much whether you will find any of what follows agreeable.

I hold Rhoda Kadalie in high regard. I do so for her incisive and uncompromising ability to articulate her views on many of our difficult social and political issues. This she does without fear, favour or prejudice; not to mention sycophancy. This is the chief cause of my disappointment with her opinion carried by the BusinessDay in its 22 October 2009 issue. I must at this point state that I agree with a lot of what she says in that opinion save for the basis of her defence of Prof. Jansen’s decision firstly to withdraw the charges against the students who have come to be known as the Reitz four and to allow those students back onto campus for the purposes of continuing their studies.

I hold Prof. Jansen in high regard. His credentials both as a human being and as an academic leader are nothing less than impeccable. He is a leader among his peers and considering where he comes from to get here, his leadership is even more astounding than Rhoda Kadalie describes it in the opinion. As much as I hold Prof Jansen and many other leaders of our society, I have on occasion had cause to disagree with him. I am no judge on these matters and I am not qualified to even tie the Professor’s shoes but disagree I do. When the Professor wrote in The Times that the cause of decline of standards and performance of poor previously white schools was the influx of black pupils, I disagreed with him. When the Professor misunderstands forgiveness, as I believe he did when he made the decisions in question, I disagree with him as I disagree with Nelson Mandela on the same subject.

Back to the opinion. That Prof. Jansen is the best thing to have happened to the University of the Free State is without doubt the gospel truth. That he will, all things being equal, achieve the reconciliation and integration he has set out in his inauguration speech, is similarly beyond any doubt. That the ANC is latching onto this issue as with many others, to gain political mileage is similarly true. That is what political parties do. However, to state as Rhoda Kadalie does that his withdrawal of the charges and allowing the Reitz four back onto campus, is visionary, reconciliatory or that it will purge the University of the rot is with respect, ill-conceived. For this reason alone I beg that the decision be reviewed at the least.

Rhoda Kadalie will no doubt remember the late Chief Justice Mohamed. While sitting as a judge, I believe it was in Namibia, he was implored by a defence counsel to show mercy on some white youth who out of primitive passion and alcohol had beaten an elderly black man to death. The defence counsel argued that these young men are but a product and reflection of the society they have been raised by. Their upbringing, so the argument went, has caused them not to have proper regard of black life as human life and so on and so forth. The late Chief Justice rejected the plea and the reasons advanced for it. He said: “To allow the 'racist socialisation' of pre-independence Namibia to operate as a mitigating circumstance, after the new Constitution has been publicly adopted, widely disseminated, and vigorously debated both in Namibia and the international community, would substantially be to subvert the objectives of the Constitution, to impair the process of national reconciliation and nation building and to retard the speed with which Namibian society has to recover from the legacy of its colonial past."

I am persuaded by this argument. Moreover, if the Professor were to follow the thread of integration and reconciliation that Rhoda Kadalie argues justifies the decision, then he will quickly arrive at a point where the “Sotho-Tswana” (sic) members of the community will tell him that one does not call an older person by their first name. Once the Professor arrives at this point, it will be difficult for him to even watch let alone condone the Reitz video. I cannot reach any other conclusion than that the conduct of the students is condoned in the face of the decision by the university not to apply its own disciplinary rules and processes.

That the ANC, Cosatu, Media and other social formations and institutions have come out sensationalizing or have come out against the Professor’s person is a red-herring. That Rhoda Kadalie disagrees with these formations and institutions (largely for good reasons) should not corner her into an illogical support of a wrong and unjust decision.

I ask that Rhoda Kadalie consider the following story that took place at one of our better universities. It was common practice at the men’s residences of this university for students to drink a lot, to be rowdy and then to vomit at various public areas of the residence. This was affectionately known as parking a tiger and some house committees even had prizes for the best tiger parked by a young man, whatever that means. So, the practice was not only tolerated, it was encouraged. The student who had parked a tiger would then have to pay R20 or so, which would then be given to the woman who has the unpleasant task of cleaning the vomit. The woman would be part of the cleaning staff employed by the university who invariably was from somewhere on the Cape Flats. She would invariably have children of her own probably the same age or older than the students whose vomit she cleaned for R20.

I now beg of both Rhoda Kadalie and the Professor to at least review what they believe to be good reasons for the Professor’s decision and to consider whether the decision is as visionary and reconciliatory as it is held out to be.

Finally, I ask Rhoda Kadalie to consider what message she believes the Professor is sending to the women who were humiliated by these sons of the University of the Free State. The apology on behalf of the university and by extension on behalf of the Reitz four nor the compensation cannot be enough to dissuade me that the view of the university community is that these women in their blue overalls do not matter. Just like the women from the Cape Flats who cleaned young men’s vomit for R20.

The University of the Free State could not have found a better leader than Prof Jansen but it can do better; it can have the Prof and a leader who has the courage to admit when he is wrong.

What am I missing?

I think I am losing my mind. There are two stories in the media which completely befuddles me. I am not even sure if they are stories worth telling in the first place (well, maybe as snippets) let alone the analysis and the interviews that I now have to be bombarded with.

The first is the analysis of whether soldiers may or may not belong to a union or participate in a strike or protest. Well, now that you have heard hours worth of debate on this issue, allow me to remind you of what our law provides. Contrary to popular belief, the law is fairly straightforward on this issue. Firstly, the right to belong to a union and to strike and to protest and so on, is conferred on every employee by our constitution. Secondly, this right is then regulated and protected under the Labour Relations Act. So, if you are an employee, you will be protected by the LRA from all manner of evil often visited upon employees by employers; one such evil is the denial of the right to form and belong to a trade union. Now how do you know if you are an employee? This is no simple matter. Well, thankfully the LRA tells us what an employee is. So, if according to the LRA you are an employee then you will be protected from the evils of the capitalists.

Now, here is the thing: the LRA specifically states that "This Act does not apply to members of the National Defence Force". This I would have thought is the end of the matter. Apparently not because for the last two days I have heard all manner of arguments of how the soldiers in question were peacefully exercising their rights. Rights they of course do not have, but hey let's not get technical.

So I ask, what am I missing?

The second story is about a certain Mr Huntley. Well, it is a nice story of how creative this oke from Mowbray can be and don't forget to credit the immigration lawyer that represented him. But, similar to the marching (striking) soldiers, everyone (including me) is throwing their five cents' worth of wood into the fire. Now we have a bonfire building up nicely and in the classic SA style, the lines are once again drawn. Here is the thing, Mr Huntley, ably represented (I guess) told the Canadian authorities a story that entitles him to refugee status. The authorities believed him and granted him protection as a refugee that has fled persecution from back home. I have no idea what test (if any) did the authorities apply but that doesn't matter, it is their test, their country, their laws.

So I ask once again, what is there to analyse?

Nothing; this is fairly straightforward: the Canadian authorities believe that white South Africans on the basis of being white stand to be persecuted by black South Africans. And of course they are doing their bit to help.

Re a leboga Caster, thank you . . .

This is what all South Africans, in fact this is what the whole world should be saying to this gifted athlete. The world does not give a damn though.

There is an apparently Chinese proverb that goes "when you are being shown the moon, do not look at the finger". A lot has been written and said about Caster Mokgadi Semenya, the women's 800m champion. The greater part of what was said and written had less to do with her achievement on the track than it did with the controversy around her sex. I say sex because I have come to learn that gender is another long and complex story. Sad as this whole saga has been, it has also been a gift to us, one for which we should be very grateful. In fact, the abominable treatment to which Caster has been subjected to has for the rest of us become a series of gifts.

The first gift is that we now know that just because people are writing or talking about something, does not mean they know what they are talking or writing about. It just means that they are exercising their right to express their view on the matter. A lot of what was carried in the media, both print and electronic, betrayed gross ignorance of the issues involved in this young athlete's saga. My own bigotry and prejudice made me have a second look when her picture was splashed across the front pages of newspapers. I found myself thinking and saying (to my best friend) ". . . eish, I'm not sure. Just look at . . ." Thanks to Caster and writings of those who know what sex, gender and identity are all about, I have recognised the bigot in me and now have an opportunity to deal with it. It also helped that a friend is a gynaecologist. The issue is that Caster does not fit in with the picture that we have formed of what is female, and therefore needs scrutiny and tests. Please, before you choke me, this is separate from the issues of fair competition that IAAF will tell you about. So, gift number 1: thou shalt no make your bigotry and prejudice into some objective standard or measure, there is lots of science behind sex and gender.

We do this all the time though; from the way people dress, walk or speak; we judge and categorise them into little neat boxes. What they do or say thereafter does not count for squat. One of my own is routinely stopped at the entrance of female public toilets and asked if she's sure this is where she want to be. She routinely lifts her usually baggy top to show that she is female, No she does not flash! Amazingly this always gets her a pass into the "ladies". Well, a lot can be said about the kind people who just want to make sure that she is not lost or making a mistake about the toilets. The fact is, it is on her general appearance that she is routinely suspected of not being female.

The second gift is that it never hurts to find out some facts behind the sensational story. Failure to do so, puts you squarely within the first gift above. Some limited research into the whole gender issue will quickly reveal the complexity that surrounds it. Hermaphroditism, although fairly common, is still spoken of in hushed tones. There are XY's out there with fully developed female genatalia and breasts. You have surely read stories of individuals claiming to be trapped in a "woman's" or "man's" body when in fact they are the opposite. You have also read about the man who has given birth in US. It is in our laziness to fully consider these issues that we are comfortable to dismiss human beings as "freaks". Those that are against homosexuality and are happy to persecute human beings for not choosing to love within the stereotype; do not know anything about homosexuality - oh, except that it is not natural. The fact is, it does not fit in with the generally accepted world view, therefore it must be wrong. And then of course there is the Bible, reportedly written by God "Himself" - enough said. Now, thanks to Caster, people have an opportunity to go and look into the issue of gender and maybe understand that it is a continuum rather than a point.

Finally, the IAAF, like all other world bodies, have now emphatically been shown up for what it and they are, thanks to Caster. Next year will be the first time that the Fifa soccer world cup will be held on the African continent. It is no small wonder that it is the African country that is the most European that earned the honour. South Africa is a lot of things but Black is not one of them. Of course there are millions of Black people living in this country but you know the townships don't count, right? A quick look at TV programming, public events, etc. will quickly illustrate this point. It is only in the last 2 years that advertisers discovered Black people, even then, only those Black people closest to White. On this basis and thanks to the lobby of the current Fifa president, the soccer world cup is coming. Oh, then there was the issue about the vuvuzela? Welcome to my world! You will of course remember the late Dempsey. Can you imagine what happened at the voting that year? All those fair minded gentlemen who said No!

Now what about the IAAF? They have apparently had to deal with this difficult issue of gender on no less than 9 occasions that I am aware of. There were reportedly 8 women tested during the Atlanta games all of whom apparently "passed" the test. And then there was a particular woman who having "passed" the test, subsequently "failed" and was stripped of her medal. Now, here is the slit in the IAAF's fairness skirt: I have not before the Caster furore heard of all the 9 cases. More importantly, no names or photographs of the athletes behind the cases seem to have been made public either during or after their tests. If they were, it was probably in some specialised publications rather than in the general media, I don't know. In short, the athletes, as they should have been, were treated with decency, decorum, sensitivity and respect. Against this background, why did the IAAF now hang Caster out to dry? What about her case did not merit decency, decorum, sensitivity and respect?

There has been something made of the incompetence of the SA athletics body. I'm not sure how this body should have dealt with this issue really. My understanding is that insofar as they were and are concerned, they have among their athletes a talented women's 800m contender now world champion. So, what were they meant to do? Approach the IAAF on some, "we know what you guys are thinking so just to set the record straight . . ."? The IAAF had concerns, which in their own words were fuelled by rumours, so it was the IAAF that had to deal with this matter. By the way, it is their job to deal with these type of issues, I take no issue with that. They however handled this one so callously as to amount, albeit in my mind, to malice. So, another gift from Caster: trust these international bodies at your own peril.

I hope that our collective gratitude to Caster will go beyond letters to the editors, protests, welcoming her at the airport and all those public expressions of outrage. I hope our gratitude to her would be displayed in the way that we look upon and treat those that we see as different. The way we interact with those that do not fit our bigoted pictures of what should be. Everytime that we interact those who are different, and we remember that they are no less human, no less deserving of decency and respect, then we would be paying homage to this talented athlete - then we would be emphatically saying: Caster Mokgadi Semeny, re a leboga, siyabonga, dankie, thank you.

And by the way, congratulations on your victory, you are afterall the women's 800m world champion.