It was just a matter of time . . .

I hear there is some ruction and disquiet caused by one of our best female artists Thandiswa Mazwai, she who is all woman, in my humble estimation that is. My dear wife finds her less agreeable but only in form. Give me that voice, let me enjoy the sway of those enchanting hips, ohh give me Thandiswa. All that of course is not the cause of this post, the ruction however is.

Thandiswa is reported to have expressed, in rather strong and dare I say unlady-like terms, her dislike of the Afrikaans portion of the South African national anthem; a portion more affectionately referred to as "Die Stem". For those who may not know (a very likely event given how long it has been since Black people were official referred to as kaffirs); Die Stem was for a long time the national anthem of the Republic of South Africa. It succeeded God Save the Queen which was the national anthem during the days of the Union; during which days Black people were officially known as natives alternatively savages.

The 90's came around and with them, the winds of change. All hitherto terrorist and seditious organisations were unbanned and political prisoners (yes, there were a lot more than one Nelson Mandela), were released. Celebrations ensued and as in the nature of celebrations, there was inebriation followed by deviation from cause of liberation in favour of peace. With peace comes the necessary cessation of hostilities. For some reason whenever peace is the objective, there seems to be a requirement for general amnesia. There seem to be a requirement that we forget the events that led to the initial hostilities. I can still remember the mantra "let by-gones be by-gones". Just in case you think me smug; I confess that I too chanted that mantra for I too were sick of war and hostilities. We all wanted it to end; so much so we forgot the fundamental requirement of peace making - the truth.

It is in this elated inebriation and lust for peace that apartheid left but Die Stem and Springbok stayed behind; and as Nelson Mandela rose to address the rainbow nation, he said: "I greet you all in the name of peace..." To demur then would be nothing less than being a ghastly party pooper. Who wants to be known by those terms? Truth, logic and common sense do however have a nasty habit of periodically coming to visit (between the festivities), just to see if the brain is still in use and the heart is still pumping. It was in such a moment that I wrote words to the effect that "I am now stuck with Die Stem in the middle of my National Anthem". What is one to do? The blue sky and the depth of the sea poetically expressed in that reminder of my dehumisation are not of the endless beauty and bounty of this land but of my exclusion. Put differently, they are expressions of triumph over the god-less.

Like with most if not all symbols, be they street names or public buildings, very little discussion or sharing was countenanced. The proverbial majority was apparently in favour of all the proposed changes or lack of changes and so it came to pass and thus it remains. For the sake of contrast: when the famous February 1990 speech in the then parliament had been made. Frederick Willem de Klerk still put a question "whether Black people were worthy of citizenship of the Republic of South Africa", to the White people - in a referendum! You do recall "Vote Yes for Change" right? It was still up to the White people to decide whether I was welcome to dine at the national table, as an equal, in the land of my birth and origin. One would have thought that similarly all national symbols (and all things proudly Sout African) would have been put to a referendum too. Not just to a competition to determine who could compose the nicest and most reconciliatory anthem. But making peace and asssuring White people that they will not be systematically butchered or robbed of their hard earned possessions is no easy chore. No less so was the reassurance of the investor community of the natives' commitment to peace. Peace, was more important than doing what in my mind (then and now) was the right thing to do. As one would be encouraged to stop at a red traffic light or to pay one's TV licence.

As in the nature of things, common sense and logic come for their periodic visits. As in the nature of things common sense and logic are often ignored or banished to the back of the national mind. All that until such realities can no longer be ignored, as was apparently the case with the fair and talented Thandiswa. Such expressions of dislike of Die Stem are of common occurence among those that I associate with; which begs the question: which majority was in favour of this state of affairs in the first place?

It was therefore only a matter of time that someone with a greater voice would refuse or hate to subject it "to where the cliffs would give an answer".

Meet Mr Jensen

This is well-written piece on white South Africa as seen by a white foreigner:

http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen06092009.html

Take back your dignity . . .

The poor do not matter, this is so regardless of all else that you may have read or heard. In fact, it would suit most of us just fine to not see another poor person. The first line of defence when it comes to the poor, is to look the other way, to convince ourselves of all manner of reasons that they are there. We never pause to think that maybe they are there because we (those who are not poor) are here.

One only has to visit any of our urban areas' public facilities to really appreciate what Desmond Tutu meant when he said that the worst form of violence you can subject people to, is poverty. Whether it is the train station, the hospitals or the schools; those that are meant for use by the poor have similar characters in common. They are dirty, over-crowded, unsafe and downright undignified.

I don't know what it is about poverty that attracts or rather that brings out the worst in human beings. The poor areas of our country are marked by all manner of social ills; from chronic alcoholism to drug addiction, from child and spouse abuse to what seem to be wanton and random murder. In and among these human dumping sites, there are invariably shiny examples of human dignity. There are tidy homes with modest but immaculate gardens and an air of respectability. No rubbish lying around, no family violence, no alcohol or drug abuse.

The government will not and in my view cannot look after the interests of the poor. The interests of the poor are by nature anathema to those of capital, which most if not all governments need more than they need the poor. The present model of wealth creation is such that there will be the top which is very exclusive, the middle which is marginally bigger and then the rest made up of the poor. This is not some Young Communist League rhetoric, it is simply the way this and many societies work. I beg your indulgence for a few more lines:

Senior government officials and practically all politicians do not by and large live in and among the poor. Not that they should, I am merely making the point that they do not as a general rule live in the poor areas or among the poor. I also concede that poor is a relative term but I trust that most readers will have a fairly good picture of what poor looks like as they read this piece. To do otherwise is to split hairs.

In the unlikely event that senior government officials and politicians' children attend a public school, they will be attending a well-run public school that is located "not in a poor area". As a general rule (of which I am yet to learn of an exception) children of senior government officials and politicians do not go to the township schools let alone poor township schools. Neither do my children for the record, but that is hardly the point. Similarly, children and families of the senior government officials and politicians do not as a general rule make use of public hospitals. Almost all government employees are on medical aid of one sort or another and therefore have the benefit of private health care. So the government spends twice; first on medical aid that will go into the coffers of private health care providers and secondly on the public hospitals, the very hospitals that are administered and managed by government officials on medical aid.

At the risk of stating the obvious (incidentally, my dearest wife tells me this morning that there is nothing wrong with stating the obivious, for what may be obvious to one person may not be so to another) people who are not poor do not send their children to poor schools. Where there are medical needs, these are met by the very best of private health care.

You may ask what is wrong with all of this and I may just take your point. This is the way things are whether wrong or right. I do not here sit in judgement of senior government officials and politicians; I am merely observing what is a fairly accurate if not common a trend. Most importantly I ask myself what the impact on society does this trend have. This trend is the reason I conclude that the government (anywhere in the world) will not and cannot meet the needs of the poor. The poor do not matter.

Those who live in the poor areas are working hard to get out of there or at the least to make sure that their children get out. Nobody wants to be poor because to be poor is to be faced with a form of violence that is not matched by any other. If you are poor, you do not count and you know it.

On the other hand, if the senior government officials and the politicians lived in the poor areas, used public transport and public schools and public hospitals; then they would have a vested interest in these areas and facilities. They will have a vested interest all the time and not only every 5 years or so. At present they do not and for that reason, the poor will continue to be ignored.

Given that the government will not and cannot give the poor their dignity back, the only alternative for the poor is for them to take their dignity back. To take their dignity back as they did in the 1980's when townships used to have competitions such as the cleanest school etc. The poor can take back their dignity by treating their own environment with dignity, even when they are forced to use the undignified portable toilets. The one thing that the poor have always managed to do through the ages, is to be resourceful and to make a lot ouf of very little.

The schools, the streets, the homes and most importantly the communities are the source of dignity for the poor. Dignity will stop littering and all that goes with it. Dignity will stop wanton drunkeness and drug abuse. Dignity will not allow anyone to resign themselves to being a basket case. When the poor resolve to treat themselves with dignity, the government will have no choice but to treat them with dignity.

These are my thoughts and I stick by them.