Just one question . . .

When did it become ok to go past a child that is alone, roaming the streets in the middle of the night?

A portrait of the South African struggle

There is little doubt that the struggle of the people of this country is portrayed in the image of Nelson Mandela. The man is as close as one can get to a Saint, in my view. What I know of the reveals that he does good for good sake, for want of a better description.

Larger than life as this great man may be, the struggle of the people of this country is multi-faceted and happened at different levels, some likely and some not. He in various ways became the culmination of the work of a great many people including himself.

It is with this recollection that I applaud the piece written by Lizeka Mda in this past weekend's City Press, a largely black Sunday newspaper - black by readership that is. I do not wish to question the legacy of Nelson Mandela and his contribution to the struggle that resulted in me being able to write this post without fear of favour. What I do wish to question is the absence of any mention of a great number of South Africans who contributed to the same cause that see us being celebrated in Nelson Mandela, as a nation. It would be a sad day when the greatness of a man of Nelson Mandela standing is a consequence of the absence of celebration of other South Africans.

With perhaps the exception of Orania, most South African towns and cities boast a street named after Madiba and that is a good thing. The coming generations will do well to remember the price some of the South Africans had to pay for them to live under a constitutional democracy. There is a case to be made and, it is ably made by sis Lizeka that we need to look at other inspirational leaders who made different contributions to the liberation of our country. There are many such individuals and their contributions vary from modest to great and took many forms. There are those who spoke out albeit in measured tones and through academic writings and in court papers or in the conduct of their trades and professions. There are those who carried out acts of sabotage and those who fought the then South African Defence Force inside and outside of South Africa as it then was.

What is the legacy of Robert Sobukwe, Zeph Mothopeng and other PAC leaders of the '60s? Is it "one settler, one bullet"? Is it about driving the white South Africans out to sea? Is it about outright hatred for white people? The contributions of the leadership of organisations such as the PAC are just nowhere to be seen.

There are others whose contribution was evidenced in the arts, religion, education and sport. There are those who kept our youth from the streets and prison. Each community needs to celebrate their heroes, those who refused to be dehumanised by apartheid, who rose above it and achieved their goals inspite of it.

Our celebration of all others will not diminish the greatness of Nelson Mandela; I believe it will enhance it. I applaud Madiba for being part of the ceremony held at Wits university a while back, where the writings of Sobukwe were handed to the university by Sobukwe's old friend Benjamin Pogrund.

It is of course the duty of the members of the organisations that were led by the great men and women who are today absent from the story of our liberation, to sing their names and achievements. It is as much the duty of those who are charged with protecting our national heritage.

Most of all, it is the duty of each one of us to find out how we got here.

Round Number Two . . . Ding!!

I have no idea what it is that Sascoc does (let alone what it stands for) I intend to find out soon but in the meantime, who on earth are they? I read somewhere that they (speaking through their fearless leader) one Moss Mashishi, have decided to sever ties with the parliamentary sports portfolio committe. I ask once again, who are they?

Mr Mashishi, in underpinning Sascoc's decision to dissociate itself with the parliamentary committee, says that the head of the portfolio committee has lost sense of the limit of his powers or some english to that effect. Funny that because I thought that it would be opportune at this point for Sascoc to review its own limits of power. Something like whether or not they may be held in contempt and so on.

What seems to have annoyed Sascoc is the statement by the head of the parliamentary committee to the effect that Sascoc is full of Indians and Whites who do not have an understanding of transformation; or something of that sort. It is for this reason that Sascoc believes that the head of the portfolio committee should check his powers. Now let's see, what is the representation of Indians and Whites in Sascoc? By whom and how are they elected? To do what?

These are all interesting questions. The one question that has me completely stumped is, how come there is proportionally such big representation of Indian people in sport yet such small representation of Indian sportspersons? Not to mention the small representation of Indian people among the citizenry? Do you remember Sam Ramsamy, whatever happened to him, what were his extend of power - is he not the gentlemen who decided that hockey players will not be allowed to go to some olympic games, I think because of their composition or performance or both, I can't remember.

Of course the number of Indians, Whites or Chinese is not and cannot be the end of the matter, it is only the beginning. It may well be that these are the people or groups that care about sport enough to make time to go to the meetings and to get appointed to the positions that they hold. I am sure a good debate with the parliamentary committee would have served more purpose than the current name-calling and sulking.

Looking around the country there is sufficient evidence that our sport is in shambles with a few splendid exceptions. This weekend, Port Elizabeth came to some sort of a standstill when the two Greys, PE and Bloem clashed on the rugby field. There were reportedly some 10 000 spectators, at a schoolboy rugby game. Seeing all those people, listening to the passion and the screaming, I realised that this was the source of rugby talent in the country. Maybe Sascoc could do something about getting the township schools more organised in sport and that way have the old rivalries of AB Phokompe, Kelokitso, Orlando West, Tlokwe High School, Matlosane, etc back.

Parents used to pack school grounds to watch some of the great rival schools play soccer.

I miss those days. Not that I played soccer or anything like that. I played tennis, I did not quite like the smell of other guys' sweat and the way the would fall on you or touch you. I don't quite like the state of SA sport at the moment and wish that the portfolio committee would crack the whip and show who's the chief.

Round Number One . . . Ding!!

This is what came to mind while reading the latest newspaper reports; and boxing is really not my favourite sport. Our journalism has really sunk to the new low levels of "mine is bigger than yours" - tough talk that is.

The first jab is aimed at the infamous jaw of one Mr Vavi, he who says the minister of finance must tow the line or go. The left hook goes for Mr Malema's midrif, he who says killing is an expression of passion and support for political leadership. I am not sure what the role of the fourth estate should be in the 14 year old democracy but clearly baiting conflict does not strike me as a role I would choose for the media. Tough talk is the business that both Mr Malema and Mr Vavi understand very well, their respective careers were built on tough talk and tough actions. These are the men who stood up when many members of the 4th estate did not. Does this make the tough talk of Messrs Vavi and Malema right? Of course not, less so the tough talk of the media!

Incitement remains a common law crime in South Africa, a crime that has to a greater or lesser extent contributed to the creation of the wonder that is our constitution. The tough talk of the two gentlemen is one that was commonly used by the liberation movement (made up of many political formations from End Conscription Campaign to Azasm) to incite the people of this country to stand up against the tyranny of the apartheid regime. Other times tough talk was accompanied by tough actions against both victims and perpetrators of oppression. This is the history that shaped the political views and expressions of the two gentlemen. That being so, what would be the chances of either of them backing down when referred to as buffoons?

What is it that incites Messrs Vavi and Malema to engage in such fighting talk? Once again dear reader this is a separate question to whether the two gentlemen should engage in fighting talk, even when incited to do so.

Mr Malema believes, correctly or not, that there is a conspiracy against his leader that has resulted in the leader now having to stand trial based on concocted corruption charges. He is not the only one who holds that view. In response to his fighting talk, the media's blood boiled and the DA farted back, or did they fight back? The media could not find enough adjectives to describe Mr Malema's idiocy and the DA wanted him charged with a crime. The human rights commission threatened action of its own. None of these rantings made our country a safer place to live. All that the rantings achieved was to further polarise an already polarised society.

It is actually fascinating how having labelled Messrs Vavi and Malema buffoons, the clever people proceeded to behave. The way I understand it, the clever people hold the view (correctly so) that fighting talk will lead to fighting and everyone will lose and our children will have no future and so on and so forth. But then the clever people proceed to engage in fighting talk of their own; saying such things as South Africa has no place for such buffoonery, are they saying Malema and Vavi must go live elsewhere? Of course not, I suspect that what they want is that Malema and Vavi should please stop with the fighting talk, which is making everybody nervous.

We all have a responsibility to this country, the fourth estate and the opposition parties included, we have a responsibility not to square up to Messrs Malema and Vavi. We have a responsibility to engage them and to put our point accross in a way that will serve our democracy and not destroy it.

The headlines are nothing but cheap points at the expense of a greater good; the fourth estate should know better.

This much I know is not good . . .

I am not sure what the judges who heard the Chinese application for an order declaring them (the Chinese) black for purposes of employment equity and other affirmative legislation including BEE legislation, had to consider. Having said that, I cannot wait until I can get a copy of the judgment (which under the circumstances must be “reportable”) so that I can at least know what I don’t know now; notwithstanding that I nonetheless write about it. So, until then all I can say is that it is not good.

Consider this; white folk arrive here some centuries ago and make the rules. The result of the rules is such that those designated black sit on the outermost of the concentric circles while those designated white get to sit in the plum of the circles, the proverbial inner circle. Those were the rules and everyone played nicely along and those who did not were dealt with. Back in the days when the rules were crafted, the designations were fairly clear and categoric; at least where the outer and the inner circles were concerned. The devil was always in the detail of the circles in between. No wonder they had to come up with the tri-cameral system. I remember reading the newspaper report (I think it was in the then Weekly Mail) and laughing hysterically at the pictorial representation of this ingenious constitutional dispensation. It was a horse-cart with three horses hitched to it. One horse on each of the 3 sides of the four-sided cart. The cart was clearly going nowhere but there it was and most people carried on to play nicely while there was an increase in the number of those who did not play along.

I apologise, I digress this is meant to be about concentric circles. Apparently somewhere in the middle circles, among the so-called coloured people and the Indians, were the Chinese people. It is the Chinese people’s contention that they were discriminated against at least to the same extent as were the so-called coloured people. They were not given opportunities to progress and so on and so forth. As I have already said I am yet to read the judgement so I am not sure what else they may have said that persuaded the court to rule in their favour. I am also wondering if their application was opposed. You see, if their application was not opposed then the court would have had to take their version of the facts as being true and uncontroverted and for that reason find in their favour. I will of course get back to you dear reader on this issue.

I remember that in the small town in which I grew up there was a doctor Chin or Achin, I am not sure which one is it. I remember him because he reminded me of Bruce Lee (yes, he of martial arts fame). I think I only ever saw him once; coming out of the house in front of my grandmother’s (what would be referred to as “front-opposite” in the township). He had his medical case and he got into his funny orange VW Beetle and drove off. I also knew where the doctor’s surgery or rooms where – they were on the town side (as opposed to the township or location side) of the small town. Back then the distinction was easily drawn – there was a gate! Not the kind you could close but there was this threshold-like structure which incidentally was the only way into and out of the location/township. On the one side of this structure was the town (where white folk lived) and on the other side was the location/township, where black folk lived. In fact in the case of my town, whites where to the east and blacks to the west. Further west but on different locations were the so-called coloured folk and Indian folk residential areas. Dr Chin lived and worked to the north of the gate.

I have not heard of any Chinese folk living anywhere but in the white areas of SA. I do not know whether they were prevented from studying at the finest of South African universities. They claim is that they were and the court granted it. This much I know is not good. Then of course there was the Chinese fella who ran the numbers, aka fafi. The least said about that the better. I have an aunt who will be very disappointed in me if I were to continue.

Did the Chinese folk have it easy in SA? Definitely not, they were not part of the volk so they could not have had it easy. Were they subjected to influx control and other social control nonsense? Probably; but Dr Chin lived and worked in a white area. I wonder where he studied. I also recall that his patients were mainly black people from the location; as were the patients of the Indian doctors. Their respective rooms were as close to the locations as possible without being inside the locations. Granted, Dr Chin’s rooms were closer. Not having read the judgement, based solely on the Chinese folk I have come to know and to know of, this much I know is not good. The beauty of being black for the Chinese folk is that they do not have to do the BEE thing so there will be no black participation in Chinatown.

I am off to go find that judgement now so that I can at least write intelligibly about this weighty matter of the rainbow coloured nation we supposedly are. Until then, hoshii, kuze kuse.