When all else fail, give it a name . . .

How is this for a name: Xenophobia! It comes with an exclamation point because it is meant to make you sit upright and pay attention. Similarly, "Farm Murders" is meant to say something other than human beings killing other human beings. So what is new, you may dare ask - nothing really, except the number of deaths. Oh, and the number of heads buried in the sand.

I still don't know how it has helped the people of this country to have named the senseless killing of human beings whose apparent fault is that they are not South Africans, Xenophobic (sic) attacks - how has it helped the victims and their families (yep they do have families, like you and I). A comedian, Chris Rock puts it rather crassly but aptly: ". . . just because you came out of a pussy in Detroit you think you are better?"

Does it make it better or worse that a victim of such ghastly crime is a South African or a foreigner, white or black, farmer or farm worker? Some of us remember the days when there was violence and then there was "black on black" violence. What happened in Bosnia and elswhere in Europe was however never termed "white on white" violence. What is this obsession with name-calling? Does the name-calling give us a better handle of the matter? Or is it some coping mechanism?

What is it that stops us from seeing this for what it is: murder fuelled by irrational self-hatred and envy? This is not new either. E'skia Mphahlele writes of incidents back in the days of Marabastad where people would attack each other based on some group identity or other group irrationality. Soweto, divided into language groups as it is, has had its fair share of violence between that group and the other.

This crime persists for one reason and one reason only: we tolerate it! We even encourage it at some level. I have heard ordinary South African say how their neighbourhoods have become riddled with all manner of crimes since "these people" moved in. These people steal their women, their businesses and who knows what else. It is all these people's fault. A representative of some traders' association was on the radio the other day arguing that these people are bad for the local businesses. Apparently these people under-cut the local traders on every level. These people sell bread cheaper than the local traders can afford to and so the local consumers flock to these people's shops the result being that the local traders lose business and some are even forced to close shops.

Is that reason now for the local people who according to their own argument are benefitting from cheaper goods, to destroy these people and their property? Why is it then called Xenophobia? Why if it is xenophobia does it have a definite African bias to it? Has anyone heard of people from Eastern Europe being hounded and killed? As for the "these people bring crime to our areas" argument; is it not a better response to report the crimes and to cooperate with the police in rooting out the crime and the criminals, wherever they may have been born? I have argued on this space before that to believe that these crimes are xenophobic in nature is to fool ourselves and to make these crimes worse.

Do we not have the capacity to defend people who are being attacked because of their origin? What makes it right for a father, mother, brother, child to be killed brutally by other human beings just because they are classified as another? Then comes Saturday and we are happy to watch other foreigners playing soccer for local clubs - with love and adoration?

The call to the media and authorities is to abandon the name-calling of crimes and to attack the crimes and criminals for what they are: muderers, thieves and arsonists. These are the people who do not deserve a place in our neighbourhoods - not people whose crime is to sell bread cheaper and to have come out of a vijayjay outside the borders of this country. If there is a need to name, let us name and shame the murderers, thieves, rapists and arsonists.

Apparently the LOC is a private body - FIFA a swiss club?

This is an argument, among several, made by an advocated I hold in very high regard - the man taught me many years ago and always mesmerised me. I now get the urge to go back to my notes, just to check. I never thought about the status of the LOC as an entity until this morning when I stumbled on the story about it being in court defending an application by the Mail & Guardian, which wants copies of tender documents. Apparently the M&G wants to show the SA public who and what benefitted from the world cup infrastructure spend.

Back to what is the LOC. Once the question popped into my head I approached the source of all my seeming wisdom - google. If the imminent advocate is correct that the LOC is a private body and should not bow to the government procurement policies and legislation, then how come this site has such a distinct government feel? The content of the page, as you will see (bottom left) is copyright of the GCIS (Government Communications and Information Services). This is apart from the prominent SA Coat of Arms (top left) and this page which sets out how, contrary to the advocate's argument the government of SA provided guarantees to, entered into agreements with and passed an Act of Parliament as requiered by FIFA. The advocate contrarianly and with a straight face I presume, argued that the agreements are between FIFA and SAFA - not the government.

I seem to think I remember (if not hallucinating) various officers of the LOC proclaiming that they are doing this whole world cup thing for the people of SA not for themselves or for SAFA - but I may be wrong. What then is the difficulty with a request to show us how they made it happen for us? These are the kind of actions that lead us ordinary folk to think that there may be something to hide.

There may be a whole lot of reasons why the LOC would not want us to know who the beneficiaries of the world cup largese are but that they are a private body who owe us South Africans no such information, cannot be one such reason. For the LOC, through their legal representatives to argue such is simply disrespectful if not contemptuous.

Now, let us see what the judge is going to rule.

End of transformation? I think not!

A professional engineer whose name now escapes me, in a letter to the BusinessDay declares the untimely death of the word "transformation", at least as "we" know it. He mockingly thanks the BMF (Black Management Forum - not to be confused with the Black Mafia Family of Detroit origin) for offing transformation.

It is widely reported that Jimmy Manyi (a black male South African), a leader of the BMF, expressed disappointment at the appointment of one Futhi Mtoba (a black female South African) as the President of BUSA (Business Unity South Africa). It is said that Jimmy decried the election of Futhi as "a blow against transformation and the unity process in the South African business community and instead a victory for the interests of established business". It is because of this expression that the engineer believes "transformation" to have met its end. The reasoning behind this conclusion is quite interesting. According the engineer (and a few who commented on the letter) a black female cannot be a blow against transformation. One comment goes as far as to ask with a measure of exasperation: "how transformed must she be, must she be a homosexual as well" (or words to that effect). Well, we take that comment whence it comes.

It is the blackness that matters, or so it seems from the contributions that I have read on this matter. For Jimmy to have said what he is reported to have said, was to make nought of the meaning of the word "transformation". It is inconceivable to the good engineer that the appointment/election of a black woman can be a blow against transformation. Would it follow then, I wonder, that an appointment of a white male can never promote transformation?

It is these narrow almost knee-jerk responses to what are very important debates that continue to impoverish and debase what ought to make up a national conversation. It is convenient and easy to gloss over statements, to ignore facts and in this case jettison logic in favour of condescending if not insulting punchlines. If by this, dear reader, you believe me to agree with or to support Jimmy, then you should probably not be reading this.

I am in no position to agree with Jimmy. I am not sure what moved Jimmy to say what he said. Most importantly, I do not know Futhi and I don't know what she has done to deserve the label of a "blow against transformation". I do not believe that it would be anything to do with her blackness (whatever it means to be black).

I am fondly reminded of my previous place of employment where in the name of transformation, I was asked to serve on the management committee. It was impressed upon me that issues of transformation will receive better attention at that level of the organisation's management, thanks to my presence - or was that blackness - I could not tell. "If the issue is transformation", I protested, "then I propose that we appoint that caucasian fella to the management committee". The caucacian person I refer to has recently become very important so I may not use his name. This came as a mild shock to the listeners at the time and I must admit that I was not awake to their shock. You see, they were not prepared to accept that the caucasian person could add anything to, let alone lead issues of transformation. This was a job for a black guy and that was it. I duly served on the management committee with some disastrous consequences.

The fact is, when it comes to the discourse of transformation, that caucasian fella was or rather would have been a blow for (as opposed to against) transformation, his whiteness notwithstanding.

Transformation is alive and well as a word, just like racism in all of its glorious colours.

Sipho Seepe & Annette Lansink: What on earth are you two saying?!

Please read this article by Sipho Seepe and Annette Lansink. Now, if you were a teacher/lecturer what grade would you give the authors? If you have the time, do scroll down after reading that article and you will see a crisp comment on the content of the article. You will also see the kind of negative comment that the manner in which the article is written invites.

The debate is important, more important than I have the words or the time to properly express its importance. The contribution of the authors (both of whom are not strangers to academia) would in my view have been much more useful if it was not set in such hard to get through language. What on earth does "Diversity can be systemic and programmatic with differentiation conceptualised along vertical or horizontal axis." mean?

A student organisation I belonged to many years ago, recognised the inequalities not only in the education that prepared students for university but also in how universities treated students unfairly in their attempt to treat students equally. We have an opportunity to formulate strategies for higher education that seeks to promote excellence without being elitist. It is possible to motivate students of all sorts of backgrounds to strive to be the best they can be. To introduce, as some institutions have done, programmes to help students to get better. All well and good but until and unless the students themselves accept that theirs is an intellectual project, I doubt if it would be of any use.

What the article succeded in doing was to leave me rather cloudy. Unhelpful really.

Racial Rage: a belated apology to my wife

This is a difficult post on many levels but moreso because it is personal. I had, when I started this space, hoped for it to be a forum where we (I dreamt of a large following) could as best we can, deal with issues as honestly and openly as possible. These were meant and still are meant to be issues that should not be personalised. I admit now that everything is personal and that without personal responsibility there really would be no point to this and any other social interaction. I often parade myself as a sensible individual who can deal with challenges with calm and common sense. This past Tuesday, that facade crumbled and exposed a part of me that disappointed me greatly.

I took my wife out on a date to go see a play "Closer" at the Market theatre. Although I cannot really afford it and although I deny it everytime my dear wife points it out, I am a snob. I love reserved sitting. I love knowing that I will not have to fight over a place to sit - I hate fighting (at least I believe I do); I was never good at it. Simply put, I am a coward. I have no time nor stomach for confrontation. At least that is what I believe.

There was no reserved sitting for this particular show and that bothered me somewhat. It bothered me because people have proved time and time again to be quite inept when it comes to public places etiquette. I was proved right. The Laager theatre was fairly full by the time we walked in but there were a few rows (they have these long benches on either side of the aisle) with a few open spaces. I chose the wrong row. We were barely into the row, with my wife leading when this seemingly young white woman jumped up from her seat to tell us that the spaces were taken. That simple act spurred me into a rage. A racial rage. At that moment all I saw was yet another white South African appropriating public space! The fact that she stood up and was about to physically stop my wife from getting past her to get to the open space did not help what was already a hopeless situation. Looking back, I should at that point have stopped to consider what it is I was doing. I regret that I did not. The truth, as pointed out by my wife is, she could not have prevented us from taking those seats. I should have kept my mouth shut, my rage in my pocket and proceded to sit down with dignity. Instead I behaved like a moronic cretin when clearly there was not need for it; in retrospect. No, I am not exaggerating.

I have considered an apology to this young lady (using the term loosely). Apart from the fact that I would not even remember what she looks like (you know how white people look alike) or her name - I do not think she would understand my apology. Here is the thing: her friends for whom she insisted the seats are reserved for or taken by, the friends who were just in the toilet and were coming, did finally arrive. After they had taken "their" seats, there was still enought space for at least two more people. Why did she try to stop us two from taking our place on the bench. Eish!

I am still disappointed at how I reacted to her and do apologise to her. She bore the brunt of all those other white people that I experience all the time appropriating public space. This is slippery-slope, thin-edge-of-the-wedge stuff. There are tons of examples out there of black people appropriating public space too. Why don't I see this and if I do see it, why do I not rage at them? Would I have raged at a rugby type guy under the same circumstances? This is hard stuff for me which I hope I get to grips with for myself. Underneath the calm facade bubbles a rage that can't wait to come out everytime a white driver does 60km/h in the fast lane and won't move. Everytime a white parent stops in the middle of the road to let out the kids out of the car at my childrens school. Instead of waiting their turn to park. Everytime they stop in the middle of the shopping isle to chat, blocking my progress.

This is the stuff that each one of us, on a personal responsibility level, have to get rid of, and get rid of fast. These are people who do not understand nor appreciate common courtesy. I ask not to be judged by my blackness. I tell my colleagues that my being late for meetings has nothing to do with my being black and they laugh. I hope that I have learnt my lesson. The next time it happens - trust me it will happen again - I will see a person whose world I would not like to inhabit and move on to find people who share my views about public space. I will quietly and with dignity assert my right to such public space. Maybe then, I will earn the right not to be judged by my blackness (whatever that means). I take personal responsibility for my behaviour and do not excuse it. I am grateful for the poignant albeit unpleasant lesson, especially at this time of the history of our country.

Rage is so ugly - dignity so beautiful - but reserved sitting is even better.

AWB swears revenge . . .

I'm having my first cup of tea hoping to catch Justice Malala on the telly. I am confronted by Jeremy Maggs instead and what's more, that Patta woman is also on, something is going down (I thought sipping my tea). As it turned out, something big had gone down and it had to do with my birth province, the North-West. Jeremy tells me of the breaking news no, I lie, he drowns me in analysis, supposition and conjecture. But hey, this is news in the 21st century: while we are waiting to learn what the real story is, we will fill the time with what we believe to be the real story. Sorry, I'm off track here (I can hear Jeremy whisper "see, it's not so easy telling a story without getting side-tracked).

Against whom is the AWB revenge going to be metted out? My ever-so-perceptive wife believes it would be directed mainly at the defenceless, as it has always been. I can't help but agree. I can almost see the news headline: "10 year old boy is beaten to death walking to the township from Ventersdorp's only model C school". But that won't be news or would it?

ET was reportedly killed by two of his workers, one of whom is 16 years old. Just as an aside, what is the minimum age of employment in this country? Then again, whatever it is, it may not apply in "Vaderland" sorry, Ventersdorp. Reportedly, the two now unemployed men were arrested or did they hand themselves over to the police, Jeremy was not so clear on this? Is there a difference? It was also reported that the pair had a dispute with ET over pay. Not much else is said about this pair. Who they are, where they were born and when they got into the business of offing others. Maybe that is because they are in custody and like Nelson Mandela many years ago, they may not be quoted or written about.

I put these snippets together in my head and can't help but wonder what the big deal really is. Death is always a tough thing for nearest and dearst, murder is always an ugly thing never to be condoned. I still don't see why my Sunday news schedule had to be changed and why I had to be flooded by news about a has-been like ET. Even as I sit here typing this, the TV is reminding me of this boer's death. Does anyone even care that I missed The Justice Factor?

So, is the AWB going to injure the two men to death (an expression borrowed from another South African political formation)? How is ET's death going to be avenged exactly? What am I missing here? There was a pay dispute and then a murder. Admittedly, there is whole lot missing in the middle but this is all I have to go on. I still don't see the leap to "revenge". I concede, logic, common sense, rationale are not attributes the AWB is known for. Vacant faces, mono-coloured clothing and propensity for violence, now those are familiar AWB traits.

As these members of the South African society contemplate revenge, they may want to pause to consider that revenge, like coke, is better enjoyed cold, ice-cold. They may do even better and remember that coke is laregely over-rated. If they can manage these mental gymnastics . . . who am I kidding, the AWB would cease to exist wouldn't it?

Revenge may be the only thing the AWB has left. Against whom though and for what?

Will real parents please stand up, please stand up . . .

There is nothing more this space can add on the trend of protests and destruction of the very amenities that are said to be the cause of disquiet. I for one do not stir any emotion at the sight of adults pulling up traffic signs, blockading roads and generally making a shameful nuisance of themeselves in the name of "service delivery protests".

What does without fail leave me in a helpless fit of rage is the even greater helplessness of the children. Take the incident, the othere day, where a library was burned down. What is to happen to the children who as their homework are required to visit a library? I listened with fascination as a 6 year old told me that at her school (far, far away from the townships) every Friday is library day and she gets to take a book out to read for the whole week and she returns it the next Friday. You see where this is going right? Will the parents please take up the fight on behalf of their children! When all this is over, the parents/adults will go back to work (if they have work to go to), the out of school youth will go back to whatever it is that they do when they are not protesting. The children however, will still not have a library and they will still not a stop or other traffic signs to protect them from cars.

Then there are other children. Admittedly, much older children, who in all fairness should be held responsible for their actions. These are those children who through the means of their parents or otherwise, are at university. Who form part of a minority that is most likely to be part of this country's privileged few. That is if they finish their studies and are able to put their learned skills to some gainful endeavour. These children however go on a rampage, protesting and blockading. Of course they call this peaceful protest, demonstration and freedom of expression. But, theirs is no different an expression of that freedom to that exercised by, say the taxi drivers/owners against the BRT. Once again I ask, where are the parents of these children? Is there no one who can say: "Ok, so Polokwane promised free education and yes, Polokwane is taking some time to deliver that free education - please go do what you are here for while Polokwane gets its act together." In a manner of speaking. In any event, are the other children not as free to attend class if they want to; as those who seek to express their freedom are free to protest and demonstrate? Where are the parents of these children whose aspirations the children carry on their shoulders. "You are the first in this clan to go to university, make us proud." The funding model of tertiary education is a separate matter. "My daughter, education is your inheritance!" Where are the parents who say this?

Then there is this particular tragic case going on south of here. Children are dead, parents are mourning and two children are charged with the murder of those children. To this day, I see the pain in my mother's eyes - the pain of burrying her young son. This is tragic. Now, children who are supposed to be in school; who are supposed to be grateful that they are alive and have an opportunity to get an education; are protesting, demonstrating, expressing their freedom and threatening violence outside the court. They want to meet out their brand of justice to the accused. They, like their brothers and sisters and parents elsewhere, are destroying the neighbourhood. Signs are uprooted, dustbins emptied onto the road surfaces and mayhem with wild abandon ensues. Where are the parents of these poor souls to whip them right into the classrooms? Are there any children in any classroom in Protea? Will these children be at the court everytime those other children appear in court?

When matters are as serious if not as tragic as this, one can only hope that the real parents will stand up lest the children remain forever down.