Coloured Africans . . .

Ryland Fisher is a really nice guy. No, I mean a good human being. I should not be so surprised by how genuinely nice this guy is, the truly gifted are often down to earth and nice. The guy responds to email from strangers and accepts invitation to tea, etc. I have previously invited him to this space, an invitation that stands. But this post is not about Ryland. It is however about a subject he holds dear and one on which he writes eloquently.

What does or can one mean when one declares to be Coloured? When one says I am a Coloured person, is there anything one could be saying (in the South African context) other than - "I have white in me"? Does and can being Coloured have any other meaning let alone content. By this I do not judge being Coloured neither do I make less or more of it than say being White or Black. I am finding it absolutely fascinating that the debate, conversation and possibly a solution to the modern South African race issue is happening and is likely to come from the Western Cape - Ryland's home. By the time the liberation organisations were unbanned and the leaders were released from prison; people of the Cape were primarily Black. Those were the days of the United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Mass Democratic Movement (MDM). Coming from the then Western Transvaal, I was pleasantly surprised when I was in Cape Town, to meet people I have grown up referring to as Coloured, calling themselves Black.

All of that has changed now. In fact it all changed when the Nobel Peace laureat, one Frederick Willem De Klerk, yes the one of "only allow a set quota of blacks to white universities" fame, yes him; started campaigning for votes in the cape flats. The flats have not been the same since. FW spread the gospel and the gospel converted the people - how can anyone forget the deacons? The Marais, the Morkels? Anyway, I digress - the good people of the cape flats were pursuaded not to be Black because that would mean the end of them, their heritage and traditions. Moreover, the Black are going to make life difficult for the Coloured people and the Indian people and the White people unless of course the Coloured people voted for the National Party. All that is a long time ago. What the previous government of 40 years or so did with the notion of colour is too painful to rehash and not particularly important for the present purposes.

What does it mean to be Coloured today, other than that you have white in you? And what if you have white in you, what does it mean? By the way if we were to shake a good number of the Black family trees, a good number of Whites are very likely to fall out. I remember being at Groote Schuur hospital, being treated for some auto-immune illness and the professor being quite fascinated that I had this particular affliction when for all intends and purposes I am a Black man. He was so excited by this odd discovery that he summoned a large group of 5th year medical students to come note this oddity. What can I say, doctors sometimes are not the most sensitive of people and their social savvy sucks at best; but when you not well they help make you better even when you are Black and have a White illness.

So much for the purity of lineage and how we should not mix. Other than as a function of political manipulation, oppression and most importantly consciousness; what does being White or Black or Coloured mean. Dr Mangcu writes a lot more intelligently than I can on this identity issue, so does Ryland. That is why I am somewhat surprised by Ryland's use of "African" in his latest offering on the coloured identity debate. He uses African as a denotation of Black people as in those who are not coloured i.e those who do not assert to have white in them. I cannot agree with this denotation. The meaning of African that I am partial to is the one contemplated by Robert Sobukwe. This term is used in general terms as the term "Black" is used in the Black consciousness thoughts and traditions. In the greater scheme of things and as more eloquently argued by Sobukwe, we are all African. More specifically we are all South Africans. To use the term as Ryland used it would lead back to the politics of origins and even then the Coloured folks are no less African. For the Coloured people to be black is a matter of consciousness and deliberate exercise in identity. More on this process of self identity I recommend Dr Mangcu's book - To the Brink.

Ryland's declaration of being black is a matter of consciousness which entitles him to no more and no less of the benefits of being a South African. I am Black and an African on the same basis. Some of my fellow Africans are White and others have White in them. The difference is that of context and time. Being Coloured no longer and should no longer mean that one is entitled to work the tills at OK's while being Black means one gets to pack the shelves and sweep the floors at OK's. The victory of the people of this country over the government of racial divisions and oppression will similarly be negated by swopping the mop for the till based on some tenous notion of identity. This is the beauty of a plural society; being Coloured, Black, White is just one of those identity things that one is entitled to. We are as a common denominator South African citizens and are deserving on that basis and that basis alone of the protection of the constitution of the land. This is so regardless of the amount of white one has in one; even if there is no white in one. Similarly, we are entitle to declare whatever identity and affiliation we choose.

Consciousness Raising: By Moremogolo

Apparently African philosophy is not recognised by academia as a discipline. Western, Chinese and Indian philosophies are for example, recognised as academic disciplines and a lot has been written on those. You can grudgingly count African Philosophers with your one hand.

Our culture and traditions is one that has been handed from mouth to mouth through the centuries and as a result all the philosophical concepts and thought have been handed down through oral tradition.

As an example when growing up we were told that in the olden days there used to be a place called Lowe (pronounced lo-we). It used to be a place of great wisdom and vision. Different cultures and traditions of African people were formed and perfected by the great wise men who lived during this time. These wise African men (and I also include women in this meaning) came up with great proverbs and idioms as a guide to the way of living during those times. These proverbs and idioms have withstood the test of time and are now part of our written languages.

I would like to believe that these idioms and proverbs reflect the philosophy and cultural practices of Africans ancient and present. They were coined as a result of observing and trying to understand human behavior. These proverbs were used to explain human behavior and to try and prescribe how individuals and societies should behave.

I call all these great people who lived during the time of Lowe philosophers, African philosophers to be precise and I would like to believe that the philosophy they espoused was existential in nature. Existentialism is a philosophy that posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to deities or authorities creating it for them. Now we know that Jean Paul Sartre, to mention but one, is one of the famous 20th century existentialist philosophers.

Sartre, the French philosopher, had this to say about man (human being) “Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines himself afterwards". Contrast this with the Setswana proverb “Moremogolo go betlwa wa taola, wa motho o a ipetla”. In a nutshell this Setswana saying means exactly what Sartre is saying. Very loosely translated it means that while masterpieces can be created by man, man alone is a master of his destiny. He has to design his own destiny in this world of hours. Basically you are a master of your own destiny.

Sartre, the French philosopher, had this to say about man (human being) “Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world - and defines himself afterwards". Contrast this with the Setswana proverb “Moremogolo go betlwa wa taola, wa motho o a ipetla”. In a nutshell this Setswana saying means exactly what Sartre is saying. Very loosely translated it means that while masterpieces can be created by man, man alone is a master of his destiny. He has to design his own destiny in this world of hours. Basically you are a master of your own destiny.

Moremogolo is one of the most important and precious bones that are used by traditional doctors (healers, councilors?) to heal their patients. It has to be crafted in a certain way in order to be a masterpiece.

If you look at all the other proverbs you will see a recurrent theme of existentialism in them. Perhaps somebody might argue that it is a different kind of philosophy but philosophical these sayings are. I believe that this is a discourse that can be debated and arguments for and against advanced. There is a need for us to take a deliberate effort in advancing our culture and I believe looking at it from this perspective is a way to go.

I call this consciousness raising and pursued vigorously it can come to occupy the consciousness of the people. Feminism, as an example, is a recent movement which raised the consciousness of the people of the world and it has come to occupy an important space. Whether one agrees with it or not it has entered the world’s outlook. Ubuntu (botho) is one such concept that is gaining momentum. In fact you could also contrast Ubuntu with another strand of philosophy which is called humanism and you will find that they share the same basic principles.

There is therefore a need for consciousness raising when it comes to our culture and traditions. We need to elevate them to the status of other philosophies. Before Christianity our forefathers had their way of life that were based on the principles of Ubuntu and making the best of yourself. If we do not call those philosophical views perhaps somebody can venture an apt description.

In order to uphold our dignity we need to plant these seeds of consciousness raising and nurture them to fruition. That way we can become equal citizens of the world, with proud histories and cultures.

Criticize me but please let me be . . .

I have always been somewhat irritated by Katy Katapodis so this post may not be as objective as I intend it to be and for that I apologise upfront. I should also state that to her credit, she is a good journalist albeit a little all-knowing and dramatic at times. Be that as it may, Katie a good journalist that she is should be left to be - so should the ill-advised Forum for Black Journalist which I suspect may be somewhat of an irritation to Katy and those who share her views on the issue of a recent meeting between the forum and Jacob Zuma, the president of the ANC.

I do not know the details of what happened at the ill-fated meeting of the forum and Mr Zuma but I do know that Katy was present at least until she was asked to leave. She says that she was asked to leave on the basis of her skin colour and for no other reason. The other version of the same story, by a member of the forum is that she was asked to leave because she was not a member of the forum and was not invited. Apparently the meeting was a private affair.

Now, a lot has been written on this story and by much more respected social commentators than yours truly. A lot has been made of whether or not Mr Zuma may arrange a closed meeting with members of a specific race to the exclusion of all other considering that he is in pole position for the presidency of the country - all things being equal. I do not know the answer to that question. I also do not know much (if anything at all) about the forum, until this issue blew up. I do however recall that there was a similar formation made up of black editors which incidentally did not seem to annoy Katy as much as the forum under discussion. I do not even know how one qualifies to be a member of the forum - in all probability if you are black and are a journalist and of course are interested you may become a member. That of course leaves Katy out, a fact she is unhappy about, to the extent that she has approached the human rights commission to rule on it - well sort of. What the complaint (as I understand it from SAFM reports) seems to be is that Katy and other white journalists should not have been asked to leave the meeting of the forum and Mr Zuma on the basis that they are not black. It will indeed be interesting to see how the HRC rules on this matter.

Back to the forum. However it came to be and for whatever motives I wish to defend the right of the forum to be. Ill-conceived as their ideas may be and as much as I disagree with the those idea, I undertake to defend the right of the forum to express those ideas within the limitations imposed by common decency, civility, our constitution and all the good things our grandmothers taught us. When the forum throws a party, using its own funds and chooses only to invite left-handed Basotho, please let them be. Katy, you are always welcome (as you always do) to report and editorialise to your heart's content on how silly, undemocratice and whateverelse it is that the forum engages in.

What Katy and all others who were not invited to the "private briefing" are not entitled to, is to assert their right to be present at the meeting. There is another term for such behaviour, it is gate-crashing and it is generally not nice. Just because others are being racist, unfairly discrimanatory and exclusionary does not give us a right to be uncouth, to arrive uninvited and insist on being included on some constitutional ground. This is the same behaviour that has led to the present Delft or N2 Gateway housing crisis.

Of course Mr Zuma stands to be judged and evaluated on relationships such as the one he seeks to cultivate with the forum. Both he and forum stand to be judged by the company they keep. There are various forums, the HRC included where rights such as those Katy wishes to assert may be asserted. An illustrations of one such forum is the article written by Justice Malala in the Times (26 Feb 2008). The plural nature of our society requires of each one of us to let the other be, especially when we do not agree with them. This sentiment of course has its limitations but it is no less true.

Whatever the outcome of the HRC hearing, I hope it will not confirm the right of anyone to demand entry to a private function she is not invited to, whatever the basis of exclusion. I believe that the Freemasons are a bunch of strange characters with even stranger ideas. I am not about to gate-crash their party but I undertake to let them be in their strangeness.

I do however wish Katy could go and insist to have a game of golf on a Saturday, at one of those golf clubs that do not let women (because they are women) play a round of golf on a Saturday. The HRC would in my mind more readily order the golf club to change that rule than it would order the forum to invite Katy.

It is just like the Apartheid days, but is it?

I was not going to take the issue of protests up again. I have in a previous post made a meal about the right to protest and the concomitant duty not to breach the bounds of human decency (see "Protesting ourselves into oblivion"). However, the subject of protests raised its ugly head in two context over the last few days, both of which I find irresistible to get into. The first relates to the students (if one may call them that) of the Tshwane University of Technology and the second relates to the eviction, by court order of people from the N2 gateway housing project.

The scenes depicted in the newspapers and on television news reports are nothing but sad. People of all ages and state of health, left on the streets by what seems to be a heavy hand of the law and government. These scenes notwithstanding, I am unable to feel sorry for the people, their families, children and neighbours. These scenes, this sadness, all those "where must I go, what am I supposed to do" soundbites were unfortunately but truly brought upon the people by the very people. I do not know about you but most of us were raised with one fundamental lesson, "you do not take for yourself what does not belong to you or what is not for you to have". It is ignoring this simple teaching that leave that destitute mother and her child on the streets and without a roof over their heads.

That they were in all probability failed by the government is probably true. That however does not entitle them to occupy, take-over, move into houses that are not for them to occupy or move into. Even when they do not agree with the rules that created the queue that eventully left them out on the lurch and without a home for "15 years" they are not entitle to take what is theirs.

I do not speak on behalf of the government. I speak on behalf of those who play by the rules, those who have waited for a home and could not get it because others have muscled in and took it over. Where the government is at fault it should be taken on and made to fix things, alternatively, as it has happened before in the Western Cape, be voted out of office. The alternative spells disaster for all of us.

As for the hooligans who masquerade as students who in their frustrations (whatever the cause) see it fit to destroy their own campus, I have this american phrase "shame on you" ok, let's try a South African word "sies" or another South African phrase "ga le tlhabiwe ke ditlhong". These are expressions of disappointment. Once again, the complaints and grievances are in general legitimate and deserving of urgent action but legitimate as they may be, do not entitle the students (so called) to go on a rampage.

The right of all South Africans to assemble and to protest is protected under our constitution. The duty to prostest civilly and with dignity is rooted in our being or at least ought to be. Unless and until the universities and other institutions of higher learning show their unequivocal intolerance of this conduct by, the cycle will keep repeating itself.

Just because one has been wronged does not put one above the demands and requirements of common decency. It may not seem like it but times they have indeed changed. We have the institutions and the means to address our differences and grievances without the need for violent protests. The scenes of police shooting all manner of munitions at protesting civilans is a stark reminder of the apartheid days - but these are not those days when the citizens did not have the institutions that would or could protect their rights. It may all look like the apartheid days but it is not.

We forget that we have a media that is obsessed with negative stereotype of the country and its people, a media that seems to resent a celebration of self and yet we feed them the images of fear, intimidation and destruction, which we become well-known for.

No more Mandelas

This is the title of a BBC production. It is a documentary based on a journey of a certain gentleman who having witness the end of apartheid comes to visit South Africa to see how things have been since the demise of Apartheid. This video is available on the BBC website and you are urged to see it so that you do not only take the views expressed in this post but you also get to formulate your own and perhaps challenge those expressed in this post.

According to the documentary, there are 15 murders a day in South Africa. This number, the documentary states is 7 times that of the United States. South Africa is according to the reporter, a "frighteningly dangerous place". The team behind this documentary goes to some great lengths to support their conclusions about South Africa and how frighteningly dangerous it is. The thesis is that the Nelson Mandela legacy has been squandered and with it the chance for South Africa to develop and thrive. First is an interview with a group of young unemployed young men somewhere in the Johannesburg area. The group of young men interviewe are black but so-called coloured in South Africa. According to the reporter it is fairly early in the morning yet the young men are already high on drugs and alcohol (sic). That judgement of the state of the young men notwithstanding, they are just the right group to interview and this is the question they are asked (among many questions some of which I am sure we do not get to see or hear) "are the things that you are doing, killing people, is this what Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison for?"

Admittedly I paraphrased the question but did not change its content. The answer to that question is very telling and shows (or at least I hope it showed the interviewer) that what is done by this group of young men or others like them, has nothing to do with Nelson Mandela or his legacy. This group of young men were also asked directly about their criminal activity and whether they thought the terrible things they did to others were right. The response was that they did things like hijacking of cars in order to get money and to survive. The interviewer then suggests to the young man who gave that response that, the young man may have to kill to get the car. The young man almost dismisively said "if you refuse to give the car I will kill you" as in get with the program dude, this is a hijack not a negotiation! The young men also pointed out to the interviewing group that they can steal the camera (yes, the one used to record the interview) as an example of the kind of things they trade in. Well, the edited version shows the crew leaving their interviewees and a voice saying "when they suggested that they are about to steal the camera, we left". The interview got to show a frighteningly dangerous South Africa.

The next stop for the crew was a squatter camp, informal settlement or whatever other name is appropriate. On the way to this location a voice says "this is Soweto sunday afternoon". I have no idea what part of Soweto the crew was driving around in but it was absolute squalor. People interviewed at this location were asked how they felt about the conditions under which they lived. One such interviewee when asked if he thought things will get better said that maybe if the white government came back. I suppose the good old days were indeed good for this gentleman, he does say as much "there were jobs for the people". The interview got to show the failure of the government to deliver on the promise of Nelson Mandela.

Interspesed with the interview clips was also a report of the murder of Lucky Dube. The late is described as South Africa's most popular musician and the South African Bob Marley. I do not mean to speak ill or make less of the dead, I also do not want to make value judgement about a person who does not have a right of reply. To say that Lucky Dube is the South African equivalent of Bob Marley is with respect not true. That of course does not make any less of the senselessness of his killing. If it is indeed true that President Mbeki resents western views, from the conclusions drawn by makers of this documentary, it is easy to see why. They either know very little about this country or about Bob Marley. We should not measure the atrocity of a murder by the standing of a person that is killed. If the crew is disingenuous about this what else in that documentary is also a paler shade of the truth?

Bishop Tutu is also interviewed in this documentary. He is rightly saddened by the atrocities he sees visited upon South Africans. What stands out in the Bishop's interview is his statement to the effect that he is surprised the poor people have not as yet gone on a rampage. The documentary gets to show a frightening South Africa. The documentary also moves on to deal with the manner in which Thabo Mbeki dealt with the Aids issue and the situation in Zimbabwe. The president could of course have done better on both counts but to demonise and write him off in fact his entire presidency is less than honest. This way, they get to show incompetent leadership that squanders the legacy of Nelson Mandela.

The clincher for me is the interview conducted with Jacob Zuma. Apart from being called a crook under the pretext of journalism, Jacob Zuma is not given an opportunity to answer a critical question relating to his rape trial, whether he took a shower in the believe that it would protect him from HIV infection. I do not know how much editing was done on the Jacob Zuma interview but I leave this for you to assess for yourself when you watch the documentary.

Scenes from this documentary are the reason why some of the leaders do not want to have anything to do with the media. The makers of this documentary left the UK with a view that South Africa is in tatters or well on its way there. All that they need to do was to find facts, scenes and interviews to support that conclusion. We celebrate the democracy that allowed this crew to come and make the documentary that shows our country to be frighteningly dangerous. The country that they drove around in and did not get their car or equipment stolen by some marauding gangs. The country in which they get to perpetuate the story about the shower without giving the person involve an opportunity of stating his side of the story. The country in which they could suggest to the leader of the ANC that he is a crook, to his face.

I can only wish that the crew could return to South Africa soon so that I can take them to play golf at the Soweto Country Club and to lunch at Nambitha and for a drink at the Rock or maybe a picnic at a park of their choice in Soweto. By the way all those other places of interest are in Soweto and this time I promise the crew will drive on tarred roads only. While we are at it we will pay a visit to few old people who live in Soweto to talk about their experiences when they go to the local clinic to get their medication. This is South Africa, we have problems lots of them and we have as many successes. It is true, there are no more Mandelas there is just the reality of building a country from the ruins of Apartheid. Incidentally, there are no more Sobukwes either but then again, that is whole story by itself, one a disinformation British crew is not likely to appreciate.

Just so that we are not biased or appear as such, we will also suggest that they take us on a tour of the UK especially those areas where children are stabbing each other to death, where fire-fighters are attacked while trying to do their job and all those other places where we can observe Brits and yobs in their natural habitat.

Journalism is dead, long live journalism!

Shedding light on skilled Afrikaners

There are apparently a substantial number of unemployed yet skilled Afrikaners around South Africa; this in the face of the skills shortage "crisis" that we so often get to read about. I am yet to come accross a media as alarmist as our own anywhere else but to dwell on this issue would be to digress. Getting back to skilled yet unemployed Afrikaners. I got to know about this from the news report and frankly ignored it until I read somewhere that the Freedom Front Plus (FFP) had extended a hand of friendship and assistance to Eskom by handing over to Eskom a large candle and a list of skilled unemployed Afrikaners.

That the list handed over to Eskom is of Afrikaners is actually a guess on my part and probably unfare on them Afrikaners but, this is how I get to the conclusion (albeit by guessing). The leader of FFP Pieter Mulder, handed over the candle and the list himself. Now, I would encourage you to spend some time on the FFP website, it is nothing but fascinating and a living tribute to our democracy. Yes the very democracy we treat with such contempt. The FFP website proclaims that the FFP is the natural home for those who are proud of their Afrikaans heritage and who wish to protect their language, culture and value-system (I paraphrased somewhat). Just for fun and if you can read Afrikaans, contrast the Afrikaans and the English versions of the content of the website. I am not sure whether the contrast is intended or just a function of a poor handle on the English by whoever did the translation. This is of course against the background of the leader of the FFP holding a Phd in communication. Well, the point is that the presentation of the candle and the list was in the name of the Afrikaner and in an effort, I would like to believe of coming to the aid of the nation regarding the power crisis.

A lot has been made lately of the way public utilities went about sacking skilled Afrikaners and replacing them with presumably less skilled Blacks. The very offer of the list by the FFP speaks to the shortage of skills both in headcount and content, doesn't it? However, not much was made of the wholesale resignations from the parastatals such as Eskom by skilled Afrikaners. Even a lot less was made of the reasons why there so many skilled Afrikaners in the parastatals to start with. Let alone all those skilled South Africans who were too scared to experiment with living under a black government and who emigrated. It is accepted the world over that any takeover is ordinarily followed by the key leadership in the taken over entity being politely asked to leave or something to that effect. So, that the leadership of Eskom had to change when the new shareholder took over is a no-brainer. With that change came other changes, intended or otherwise. It is understandable that under those circumstances and during those times, some of the skilled Afrikaners may not have been prepared to answer to the new bosses. Some of the skilled Afrikaners may have been enticed more by the cash value of their packages and others may just have been tired of working. In replacing these skilled Afrikaners, Eskom leadership correctly in my view, applied affirmative action.

Now before you get upset and stop reading please, I do not hold a brief for the leadership of Eskom - that they have done a bad job is obvious for everyone to see and is indefensible. What gets my goat is the suggestion that the poor performance of the Eskom leadership is a function of lack of skilled Afrikaners the re-employment or employment of whom will fix the power problem. The shortage of technical skills affect all sectors of the South African economy yet production continues and the wheels of commerce continues to turn. Eskom is no different. I would argue that Eskom should be in a much better position given the its spend on training engineers, etc. What differentiates Eskom from the others who compete for the technical skills is leadership and not only the current leadership but historically. It is Einstein who is reputed to have said that we cannot solve problems using the same tools we used when we created them.

It is opportunistic, which of course what political parties have to be, to associate the problems we face as a nation with the unemployment of skilled Afrikaners. I encourage all skilled South Africans to apply for employment and apply their skills to the betterment of our country. I encourage the employers to affirm the rights of all South Africans to participate in the employment market and the economy of our country.

So Mr Mulder, the symbolism of your gesture is noted for its contempt.

Of English-speaking children and Africans . . .

South Africa and I suspect Africa, is an interesting place to live in the 21st century; even more interesting to raise children. I was on the phone the other day when my youngest child came running towards me, shouting "hello daddy!" and proceeded to tell me something or another that her brother was doing and presumably to her exclusion. All of this happened in english. The voice on the phone teasingly said: " . . . your children speak english . . ."

The debate about what Black children speak is one that is common among South African black parents. It has been the subject of radio talk-shows, newspaper articles and spirited conversations over a drink. I recall one such talk-show chastising every single one of the "detribalised" (mainly professional) black parents who allow their children to speak english at the consequential expense of their home language, mother tongue, vernacular, etc. The presenter of the show and the majority of the callers were up in arms about how the black nation has lost its way, thanks to the schools that we are now all sending our children to. The solution to this deterioration of Blackness or Africanness was for the parents to insist that the children only speak their home language at home and not to have any black family speaking english among themselves. Anything else amounts to us trying to be white, so the argument goes.

From the debate conducted on this show, raising children came across as a fairly straightforward exercise. The parents tell the children what to speak, when to speak it and then the children will grow up to be good Black or African children. During this debate both the callers and the presenter made a lot of the fact that when they grew up, they would never be caught speaking english to their parents or to other black people, period! It was one of those "good old days" arguments that says the generations before were so much better at things - purely because they were the generations before.

I found all of this both amusing and annoying and found myself wondering how many of the callers, and whether the presenter himself, had children that they lived with and were raising. The propositions of the participants in the debate were amazing considering that the majority of the callers were from Gauteng. Now, parenting in that province is even more difficult than you can imagine, especially if you have never lived in Gauteng. As an illustration, imagine how many hours an average Black family in Gauteng spends together - Awake? How many hours a day does an average Black child in Gauteng or anywhere else in South Africa, spends in the place where she lives, be it township or surburb? How many of these children spend the most of any day in a unilingual environment?

In the good old days we went to school where we lived. Even when we were sent off to boarding school, it was to a school with other Black children in a Black school. This of course excludes the multi-racial schools of those years, the Saint this and Saint that. It is dishonest and self-serving to suggest that a concerted and deliberate effort was made by our parents and elders of those days to "teach" us our various home languages at least in the urban setting. Our context, our way of life and our environment taught us our languages and then some. Those days in my case, were the days without television and only one transistor radio in the house - contrasted with DSTV and your child having their own hi-fi in their own room. The choice of the radio station you listen to was made by the good old father and head of the house. So, our generatin grew up on Mathubadifala, Mopheme and others. After school our townships and villages were our playgrounds - the games were those handed down to us from the ones who played them before us, our brothers, neighbours children, cousins and so on. To play you have to learn from others, no manuals for morabaraba or diketo, all taught and learned in the good old oral tradition. Meanwhile the parents were at work in the houses of white people and in the factories, while others were in the offices and classrooms and hospitals and so on and so forth. We learned, we lived and we grew most times oblivious to what we were doing - where the lofty ideals of Black pride and language survival is concerned. Besides, the versions of the various Black languages that are spoken in the townships bore average (at best) resemblance to the languages they were meant to be. At least we did not speak english among ourselves, so the argument has to go. With honesty contrast our context with that of our children and their plethora of electronic gadgets.

Then came the liberation and the choice to live and work wherever you well choose. The measure of ones success came to be where one lives. The further from the squalor and the noise and the violence and the smog of the township, the better. We drag our children with us, find them a nanny, a minder, a helper and so on and off to a 14 hour work day we go. When they are not being nannied or minded the children are in a school where they are a part of 40 Black children in the entire school and in their neighbourhood, theirs is the only Black family, as far as they can tell. Back at school, there is a solitary Black teacher, the "Zulu" (sic) teacher.

This is the context and environment that our children are expected to learn to be good Black children who do not speak english among themselves or to their parents.

These truly are interesting times, especially for the Black child. Less so in the rural areas than in the metropolitan areas and less so in the uni-cultural and monolingual provinces than in Gauteng. Our children, the spoiled ungrateful brats that they are - are only a reflection of what they grow up; and ironically we see to that! It is often in the name of giving them the best possible chance of survival and better prospect of success in the not so good world of today that we are their accomplices in the crimes that we accuse them of committing.

Inspite of us and their environment, the children learn with time, who they are and what it means to be who they are. Thankfully, being them, they come to learn, does not mean unwanted pregnancy, jail term, poverty and all those negative stereotypes that we grew up with. The very stereotypes that make us so angry with these english-speaking children. Strangely, they are the living testimony of our success as we have come to define it - by moving out of an environment that taught us our languages and our ways of doing things.

I judge not the adults. I hope the adults chastise the children less but teach them more; whatever happens, their Blackness is the one thing the world will always remind them of. As we defined ours, they too will continue to define and redefine their Blackness and being Black will grow beyond the colonial pictures of ferocious spear wielding loin-cloth clad caricuture, to the real people we are today, tomorrow. Remember, there were once Vikings.

No Blacks No Worldcup

I am amazed by the issues that the South African media devote time to. The issues which are somehow regarded as being news-worthy or worthy of national attention and debate. A regular columnist (that is how he is described) in the Sowetan newspaper took issue with the fact that South African are obsessed with race. Yes, the very South Africans who until 1994 were subjected to a government that legislated privilege on the basis of race. The very South Africans who until 1994 were something or nothing depending on their race. Yes, these South Africans must just stop their obsession with race and get on with life. The very South Africans who do not know how to be raceless - worse still who do not seem to understand that their greatness or otherwise has nothing to do with their race.

The columnist uses examples of South Africans who had recently achieved various "firsts" in the history of South Africa. One was the first Black South African to win the the Duzi canoe race; another was the first Black woman to be chair of a university council; and the third was the recently appointed national rugby team coach (for the record, the coach does not want being black being mentioned). The columnist argues that we should not bother with identifying these South Africans as being Black or whatever other classification for that matter, in these contexts as it somehow takes away from the fact that they are just South African achieving remarkable things. He argues further that carrying on like this perpetuates the stereotype that Black people are not good enough until compared with their white counterparts. The comparison, he argues, comes from the mere mention of the fact that someone is Black as we mention the fact of his or her achievement.

Black people as much as White people are a South African reality albeit not perculiarly so. The very Black people who have been told and continue to be told that they will not amount to and never have amounted to nothing.

I believe that there is cause to celebrate black achievement here; not just achievement in a general sense. Please let us not take away the trailblazer status from these fine Africans. They are the first to go do these things that we were raised to believe that no darkie can achieve. Mr Shuttleworth on the other hand, was pretty much raised for loftier stuff, for this guy, the sky was not the limit. Having said that, that is the type of stuff white people are known for, at least that is what we are raised to believe. So another white guy wins a tennis match, so what? Two Black women tennis players (oh by the way they are sisters) play in the final of the wimbledon tennis tournament - now you're talking!

The columnist must be having a rather tough time, this being Black history month and all. This for me is a pleasan move from "three Black men are on trial for the robbery of the local bottle store" to a Black man battles ecoli and the rapids to win the Duzi canoe marathon. Quite frankly, my son needs these representations of Black men more than he needs to get over being Black. Validation and celebration of self begets validation and celebration of the other.

And then there's Justice Malala, a bright writer and social commentator who these days writes for The Times, among other achievements. He recently wrote that South Africa should not host that biggest spectacle on earth, the Soccer World Cup tournament. Mr Malala believes that to have South Africa host this great and historical event, would be to reward the arrogance, incompetence and (whatever else descriptive negative label) of the current politicians. He does go to some length to show the incompetence and arrogance of these politicians. If Mr Malala had his way, the whole lot of them would be fired by now - in fact we would be much better off without a government. For all this Mr Malala is celebrated by others as a fearless and fiercely independent South African. One who is not afraid to take on the government. I am not about to square up to Mr Malala, the man is nothing less than a master of his craft and I hate losing. All things considered he, like a fair number of South Africans probably has a fair beef with our politicians.

What I cannot understand though is what on earth he seeks to achieve with calling for the Soccer World Cup to be given to the Australians. This competition generally takes place in spite of and not because of politicians (there is of course a qualified exception in Nelson Mandela). It is the decision of the international football authority that determines which country gets to have the privilege of hosting the competition and the world. A substantial number of South Africans (citizens and residents) are looking forward to this competition and I cannot for the life of me understand why they have to bear the brunt of Mr Malala's chagrin. Can we please not have the beef between Mr Malala and our politicians spoil the greatest spectacle on earth that the rest of us cannot wait to enjoy, to celebrate, to participate in; and all this in spite of our politicians.