This has been a week of a hive of political activity that this country has never seen before. Not even 1994 can rival or even come close to what we experienced this week, as a nation and as a country. You see, 1994 elections were about laying claim to citizenship, about voting against wrong and confirming the right and the almost saintly. This past week saw the emergence of a new movement and a consolidation of another – all this, without a discernable threat to the incumbent, the ANC.
What is more interesting to me than the events of the past week is how members of the media reacted to it. Allow me to share my quick glance through the some papers with you. First is Bra Fred.
The Bra in Bra Fred (for those who may not appreciate) has nothing to do with undergarment of the lacy kind. It is my sign of respect to the man, this he deserves hugely. Fred Khumalo is among the eminent of the men of letters, he has been around for a long time and by the look of things, he will be around for a while longer still. It is consequently with disappointment that I read one of his two contributions to the Sunday papers. Something along the lines of some A to Z of being Zulu (sic) and being cool.
Thanks to Bra Fred, white South Africans can now talk of women’s breasts in more than two languages; and they would also be able to attest to the Zulu men’s love for the breasts. White South Africans will also have learned that Zulu men prefer an all round bigger woman, with big behinds and big breasts. Have a read at this column. You may enjoy it, it may disturb you but it is there as it should be. I took a view that the piece is ill-considered and probably inappropriate at this time but that is only my view. What is important is that Bra Fred carries on his trade and through it, share his views and those of his people (the “we” that he refers to). Whatever my views, they should not detract from Bra Fred’s right to get it wrong as he often has.
Second is Zapiro. He too has his own A to Z of South African Socio-Politics. Let me state upfront that I have always held the view that Zapiro’s depiction of Jacob Zuma, regardless of his journalistic, satirical or artistic intentions, is disrespectful, crass and insulting. Zapiro does not have to agree with me, does not have to change his mind on my or anybody else’s say-so. Reading his latest cartoon, I could not help but feel that he is driven more by sour grapes than social commentary. That however, is only my view. One that is not intended to dissuade Zapiro from waging his campaign, both as a citizen and as a cartoonist. He may not have a right to be disrespectful, crass or insulting but it is not mine or anyone else’s right to teach him manners. Zapiro has a right to express himself within his own moral context, a right I endorse and trust he will always have. The fact that I often disagree with his take does not come into it and the fact that 67 percent of the South African voting public disregards his take should also not come into it.
Between these two social commentators there are others like Mr Donaldson who I no longer read. I find him unnecessarily abrasive which in my view gets in the way of whatever message he wishes to share. He too has a place albeit one he often uses to spew unpleasantries – in my view that is. There is also Mr Malala who is often on the money but sometimes just childish; like the day he suggested that Mr Zuma is afraid to come onto his show. The point is, the people Mr Zuma sought to speak to during the campaign do not necessarily watch Mr Malala’s show and it was no skin off Mr Zuma’s nose not to be on Mr Malala’s show. This too is just my view; one that does not make less of the role Mr Malala plays. Then there is Dr Mangcu: a sharp mind at the best of times but sometimes too much of “I told you so” kinda guy. I also wish he would learn more than he opines when it comes to matters of the law. Each one of these commentators and those that I have not mentioned in this post have a place and a role to play. We would sometimes agree with them and other times disagree but never should we seek to silence them.
South Africa stands to gain a great deal from debate and differences of opinion on all manner of issues. I worry about the tendency to name people or groups in an attempt to silence them and deny them a right to speak their mind and to differ with whomever on whatever. I also wish that issues could be debated on their merits and not on conjecture and irrelevancies. As a case in point: whatever ones position on the issue of Mr Zuma’s criminal charges; the one immutable fact is that neither he nor anyone else ever has an obligation to prove their innocence. It is for the state to prove their guilty. The failure of the state to do so, should not be placed at Mr Zuma’s door. Any impropriety must be dealt with factually and not through sloganeering. Similarly, in the rough and tumble world of politics Mr Zuma and his supporters must expect and should concede that political point scoring will persist.
This is a brave new world and fortune will favour the brave – as they say in the classics.
What is more interesting to me than the events of the past week is how members of the media reacted to it. Allow me to share my quick glance through the some papers with you. First is Bra Fred.
The Bra in Bra Fred (for those who may not appreciate) has nothing to do with undergarment of the lacy kind. It is my sign of respect to the man, this he deserves hugely. Fred Khumalo is among the eminent of the men of letters, he has been around for a long time and by the look of things, he will be around for a while longer still. It is consequently with disappointment that I read one of his two contributions to the Sunday papers. Something along the lines of some A to Z of being Zulu (sic) and being cool.
Thanks to Bra Fred, white South Africans can now talk of women’s breasts in more than two languages; and they would also be able to attest to the Zulu men’s love for the breasts. White South Africans will also have learned that Zulu men prefer an all round bigger woman, with big behinds and big breasts. Have a read at this column. You may enjoy it, it may disturb you but it is there as it should be. I took a view that the piece is ill-considered and probably inappropriate at this time but that is only my view. What is important is that Bra Fred carries on his trade and through it, share his views and those of his people (the “we” that he refers to). Whatever my views, they should not detract from Bra Fred’s right to get it wrong as he often has.
Second is Zapiro. He too has his own A to Z of South African Socio-Politics. Let me state upfront that I have always held the view that Zapiro’s depiction of Jacob Zuma, regardless of his journalistic, satirical or artistic intentions, is disrespectful, crass and insulting. Zapiro does not have to agree with me, does not have to change his mind on my or anybody else’s say-so. Reading his latest cartoon, I could not help but feel that he is driven more by sour grapes than social commentary. That however, is only my view. One that is not intended to dissuade Zapiro from waging his campaign, both as a citizen and as a cartoonist. He may not have a right to be disrespectful, crass or insulting but it is not mine or anyone else’s right to teach him manners. Zapiro has a right to express himself within his own moral context, a right I endorse and trust he will always have. The fact that I often disagree with his take does not come into it and the fact that 67 percent of the South African voting public disregards his take should also not come into it.
Between these two social commentators there are others like Mr Donaldson who I no longer read. I find him unnecessarily abrasive which in my view gets in the way of whatever message he wishes to share. He too has a place albeit one he often uses to spew unpleasantries – in my view that is. There is also Mr Malala who is often on the money but sometimes just childish; like the day he suggested that Mr Zuma is afraid to come onto his show. The point is, the people Mr Zuma sought to speak to during the campaign do not necessarily watch Mr Malala’s show and it was no skin off Mr Zuma’s nose not to be on Mr Malala’s show. This too is just my view; one that does not make less of the role Mr Malala plays. Then there is Dr Mangcu: a sharp mind at the best of times but sometimes too much of “I told you so” kinda guy. I also wish he would learn more than he opines when it comes to matters of the law. Each one of these commentators and those that I have not mentioned in this post have a place and a role to play. We would sometimes agree with them and other times disagree but never should we seek to silence them.
South Africa stands to gain a great deal from debate and differences of opinion on all manner of issues. I worry about the tendency to name people or groups in an attempt to silence them and deny them a right to speak their mind and to differ with whomever on whatever. I also wish that issues could be debated on their merits and not on conjecture and irrelevancies. As a case in point: whatever ones position on the issue of Mr Zuma’s criminal charges; the one immutable fact is that neither he nor anyone else ever has an obligation to prove their innocence. It is for the state to prove their guilty. The failure of the state to do so, should not be placed at Mr Zuma’s door. Any impropriety must be dealt with factually and not through sloganeering. Similarly, in the rough and tumble world of politics Mr Zuma and his supporters must expect and should concede that political point scoring will persist.
This is a brave new world and fortune will favour the brave – as they say in the classics.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment