What would Biko say?

Xolela Mangcu wrote a book on Steve Biko. The title of the book is Biko: A Biography. At the launch of the book it was lauded as an overdue and necessary work on Biko. Please get yourself a copy of this book, read it and make up your own mind on the book. It is a great pity and a poor reflection on all of us that it has taken this long for a book to be written and published about one of the greatest South Africans. Well done Xolela; I hope there is more coming.

Andile Mngxitama wrote this review of Xolela's book in the Mail & Guardian. The content of what Andile wrote is not important for the purposes of this post. In fact the content of what Andile wrote could be a distraction. Xolela then wrote this review of the review of Andile. The content of that latter review is similarly not important.

My disappointment in these two students of Biko defies all descriptions I could muster. At one point the only response to both was a heavy heart and tears. They will probably have nothing but contempt for my tears, especially Andile (he is not sentimental type). Here is the thing, I have children who I would very much like it if they were to get to know about Biko and Sobukwe. Compared to the beloved Mandela, there is very little written and published by these two giants. Giants that Mandela himself has conceded their greatness. Look at the number of books written about Mandela - look past the fact that there is yet to be a book written by a black author - do you see anything even close to what these two have done? Fortunately, no writer will ever diminish the greatness of Biko or Sobukwe. What Andile and Xolela did does however diminish what I presume (I take responsibility for that presumption) Biko represents. What Biko represents as a black man, an activist and as Andile points out, a philosopher.

These two chaps kept the Black Consciousness torch burning while they were students at Wits. They were comrades facing the challenge and sometimes the wrath of the "Congress" types. They know first hand about the "black on black" violence of those dark days. They are both very gifted and in that sense, this country needs them and others like them if we are to make progress. Selfishly, I need them both for the education of my children. Of course they look at things differently, such is the nature of brilliant minds; but for blackness sake must they exchange insults in the process? I am all for robust debate, that is the only thing that will save us from the rubbish politics of greed and destruction. That however is no licence to be crass. Robust engagement should not take the form of black on black violence albeit of the intellectual kind.

Nobody and nothing is ever just one thing; that much I have learned and that much I believe is true. What stops these two from collaborating on a book about Biko? Instead of accusations and veiled insults could they not trade ideas about the next great book on Biko?

Would Biko read their respective contributions to the Mail & Guardian and then say: "ok, you are right and you got it wrong"? Would that even matter to Biko? Or would he tell them to each write what they like? What about their responsibility to those who do not know what they know? What about their responsibility to black thought? Something tells me that Biko (of whom I know very little) would be less than impressed with all of this.

Black leadership, in all spheres of South African life should take no prisoners as critiques of each other. That I believe is how ideas are shaped and how they become better for the benefit of us lesser mortals, more so for our poor radar-less children. The leadership, especially thought leaders owe us a duty to keep the dialogue respectable. An attack always begets defence; conversation on the other invites  participation in the exchange of ideas. Unfortunately this is not what Andile and Xolela do. They call each other names and in the process the valid points they each make gets lost in the noise of attack and defence.

With the greatest of respect to you Andile and Xolela, you can and must do better. The great work of the leaders and youth of the 70's has been largely undone by the brutal activism of the 80's. There is a lot of work to be done to reclaim the dignity of the black people - who better than the two of you and others like you to undertake that project?

Get over it, move on to a new SA

This seems to me to be the core message of the new South Africa. From Nelson Mandela to Helen Zille to Pieter Mulder. Of course, being stuck in the past is not ayoba but forgetting is. Ok, let me put it in the language you would understand: "bodiba jo bo jeleng ngwana' mmago, o bo kekologe". I may have quoted this all wrong since I have also moved on to a new SA. What this saying means is that one should give a lake that ate one's sibbling, a wide berth. To do that, you should remember that you lost a sibling at that lake. In this case, 69 of them.

As I am writing this, the news report is showing "angry" Sharpeville residents protesting against the government's decision to commemorate Sharpeville Day (now human rights day), in Soweto. Is this decision an oversight or part of a master plan to write Sharpeville Day and all that it stands for from our history and memory. Or is it just the sheer embarrassment of the horror that is today's Sharepeville. New names and new realities, it is difficult to remember. It is difficult to remember and therefore likely that we will go frolicking in the lake that ate our siblings; 69 of them. If the anger displayed on TV is anything to go by, this lake is about to swallow even more of our sibblings.

The day, March 21, 1969 was always known and committed to memory as Sharpeville Day. In the name of reconciliation and assurance to white members of the new SA family that they will not be made to pay for the sins of their fathers; the day was renamed human rights day. An assurance to our new siblings some of whom were the very lake that ate our old siblings. That however, we are not to remember. That we are to get over and move on to a new family with new memories; forgeting the lake that ate our siblings, 69 of them.

I have gotten over a lot of things but I cannot move on. I have learned that moving on requires some measure of resolution of that which you wish to move on from that which will hold you back. How do I move on when I cannot resolve in my head why a powerful memory such as Sharpeville Day should be erased. Just the other day the ANC government decided that the voortrekker monument (a memorial of the triumph of Afrikaners) would now be a South African national heritage. This monument becomes a national heritage as the Voortrekker monument, not the Unity monument or maybe Versoening monument. The lake that ate the Afrikaner siblings will always be remembered and that way less likely to eat others. How do I resolve these two realities? One memory is said to be devisive another, just as devisive becomes a national heritage.

Reconciliation was the key consideration that drove and still drives the decisions of the ANC government. So, when it is decided that the memory of Sharpeville Day would be too stark and too real, it is resolved that Human Rights Day will be the new memory. This is done not in memory of our 69 siblings who died that day but as an assurance to our living new found siblings. The view of the ANC government is that we should move on while the Afrikaner and other communities hang on to their memories and victories; including the memory of eating our 69 siblings.

I do not want to get over this and will not move on to the new SA or anything else. I want to remember that governments are about power. That governments will use force to retain their power. Especially when the spinning and the lying can no longer work. I wish that we could all realise that those 69 people who were unarmed yet gunned down by a police force acting on behalf a government that was determined to hold on to power - were our sibblings, all of us. I don't want to move on to a government that desecrates the graves of their own to appease their new friends but old foes.

Honour the memory of our 69 murdered siblings. Be grateful for the human rights they contributed towards. Do not get over the memory of their death and do not move on and forget them. I for one will not be frolicking in the lake that seeks to wash away the memory of my murdered siblings.

MAYIBUYE!

Here's to another New Year

The date has changed like it changes with every passing day. We now move onto a new year, most of us, with hopes of new things. New as the season may be, some old things will remain with us. One such old thing is how one routinely gets treated like shit for no other reason than that one is black. I concede, that sounds really whingey (yes, it is a made up word). Whingey as it may be, the point is no less valid.

I have lived in 3 South African big cities having grown up in a small afrikaans and racist town. That town has remained small and brutally racist notwithstanding the claims of change and rainbow nation. In this town, part of industrial discipline is the crushing of an employee's testicles and jamming fingers into the employee's nostrils. That is the stuff that make it onto the paper for a day or three at best. The last I saw of this one incident was when the "employers" appeared in court. I have not seen anything on this story since. Most South Africans react with horror to these types of incidents. We react with the same horror when children are brutalised. These reactions of horror do not however find expression anywhere else but on social media or some obscure page of the newspapers.

The conversations on racism and prejudice are at best simply annoying. There is persistent reports of how white males cannot get employment yet the employment records do not support this assertion. Any and all forms of progress by black people is reduced to BEE or some or other leg up by white people. Any and all forms of criminal conduct by black people is nothing but the nature of "these people" and by the way all such conduct is committed in the name of all blacks. All good things are the norm with white people and an exception with black people.

In this new year there will be all manner of open competitions such as idols which will be won by some white guy. All representation of white in our society continues to be that it is right and good. White people work hard, they are clever, they are experienced and do not get or spread aids. That is the magic of representation. A white guy is not just a white, it is a representation of what marketing folk refer to as aspirational. It is the white surburb that I want to live in, a white school that I want my children to go to and the car driven by the white guy and his family that I want. Well you know what all that is black is like right? Why and who would want it?

No sooner than you have moved into that surburb, representation promptly get to work and before you know it, you are a representation of all manner of things. Raucus parties that go on for all hours of the night or the latest beneficiary of the ANC largesse or better still, a beneficiary of some white company BEE transaction. Yes, these are generalisations! The view of a black person as a lesser being is a generally held one.

What in the new year should we do, of course that is if we don't believe that this should be the way things are? Establishments such as restaurants and other places of trade owe their survival to the general public who spend their money there. The conduct of these and other places towards other human beings is done in your name and on your behalf. The way young men were sent into townships to brutalise, maim and kill. The same way a Somali trader is torched to death. These experessions of prejudice towards "the other" is carried out in your name and on your behalf. Your support is your silence or maybe even active participation. So, the next time that indian shopkeeper shouts at the employee like the employee is less than human, let your shock and horror find expression in the shopkeeper's pocket. Go spend your money somewhere humane and make sure that you spread the word.

You may have noticed the change of tone for the worst on social and other electronic media. There is a simmering resentment and anger. This too will someday find its own expression, alternatively it may just create the space and platform for mayhem and senselessness. It is not enough that as a man you do not rape. Every rape is in your name. Your horror and disapproval must find expression in your constant fight (in whatever way you choose) against rape and sexism. So you are not homophobic but you know and socialise with those who are. Give expression to your believe.

These are old issues and some may say these are tired issues. For me, this is a new year and each year that passes by without these old tired issues being dealt with, something will have to give. This may be a new year when we find new ways of having a conversation, even a screaming match, about the things we disagree about. You may find yourself at a place where you are the other and for that reason you may be kicked to death by young boys. Those who survive you may watch the young boys get away with it.

Happy New Year, whatever that means to you.

Media storm in a Protection of Information cup?

It is reported that after pressure from civil society and elsewhere, the ANC government introduced some far-reaching amendments to the Protection of Information Bill.  I have not seen the amended Bill but I am told that it limits the scope of the organs of state that may classify information as secret thereby denying access to such information.  I have also heard it suggested that the Bill must have a public interest clause for it to be acceptable.

I may be missing something so maybe if I put my thoughts out there; I could be put straight by a fellow South African or two. This is not a sudden attack of ignorance on my part where the Bill is concerned. As you can see in this piece, even before the amendments to the Bill, I did not think it was as bad as “everyone” seemed to think. When later on I discovered that those who decried the Bill did not seem to have read the Bill, I became more attached to my earlier belief about the Bill. It seemed to me that the majority of the commentators on the Bill (in its earlier and present form) are quite happy to take the word of the media reports on what the Bill says. So I ask - why would so many well known and respected South African be so set against what I believe is a Bill like any other of its kind? I don’t know.

I also don’t know why statements about the Bill or what its effect will be that are simply not fact, are paraded as such. Allow me to illustrate. A caller on SAFM programme says that if the Bill was to become law, the fracking shenanigans in the karoo would not be known. This assertion is accepted as fact by the presenter and his guest, who happens to be Professor Habib. Why is this? I don’t know. Let’s indulge the logic of this caller and compare it to the Bill as it was before the amendments.

Measures taken in terms of this Act must –

(i)                  have regard to the freedom of expression, the right of access to information and the other rights and freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights; and

(ii)                be consistent with article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and have regard to South Africa’s international obligations;

These words come from the Bill. In fact they form part of what the Bill refers to as principles that underpin and inform its interpretation. Now, I would have thought that classifying fracking information would go against these principles and be contrary to the Bill. But then again I may just be naïve. Let it not be forgotten that interpretation of legislation is a job best suited for the courts and not editorial suites.

It seems to me that the general understanding is that the Bill when it becomes law will give this government power to classify information without cause or justification. Moreso, regardless of the provisions and purport of the very Act that empowers them to classify the information.  There are also claims of this Bill being unconstitutional. If this be the case, surely the Constitutional Court will strike it down. These assertions are made without reference (none that I have seen or heard) to the constitution or to the offending portions of the Bill. This should not come as a surprise though. The objections to the appointment of one Mogoeng as Chief Justice were not founded on the constitution which,  govern such appointment. The inappropriateness of Mogoeng was not based on the constitution which required only that he be fit and proper and a South African citizen. The objections were based on his religious beliefs and matters previously dealt with and not regarded as impediments to him becoming Judge President of the North-West division of the High Court and later a judge of the Constitutional Court.

As for the public interest clause, I’m unable to understand its purpose under the circumstances.  The Bill (the one before the amendments) lists purposes for which classifications may not be put to use. When you have time read sections 17 and 21 of the Bill (the one before the amendments). Let us assume for our present purposes that any classification is done strictly in accordance with the letter of law. Once properly, legally and justifiably classified, what circumstances would amount to public interest if such classified information was to be disclosed contrary to the provisions of the Act?  It seems to me that on the one hand “rule of law” proponents accept that there is information that this state, like others around the world, is justified in classifying and keeping secret. But on the other hand reserve for them a right to disclose the very information and seek refuge under “public interest” which they assert should be contained in the very Bill. How can that be? I don’t know.

Of course there are justifiable criticisms of the Bill. For one, it is poorly drafted. But whether it is as draconian a piece of legislation as it opponents claim? I don’t believe so. Maybe the issue is not the Bill but that this government cannot be trusted with it.  In the meantime, it would be interesting to see what Protection of Information Act 84 of 1982 says about states secrets and why it is not a bad Act and why it should stay on our statute books.

The debate about the so-called secrecy bill should not be made up of conclusions but a serious of statements that resolve themselves logically into one or other conclusion.

Professor Jansen, please, enough already!

I am at my wit’s end with Professor Jansen. What on earth did poor black children ever do to this man? Ok, here is the context to my current frustration (I have many so bear with me):  This is the article Prof. Jansen wrote in today’s edition of The Times or Timeslive, depending on what your news source is.

This is not the first of this type of article that Prof. Jansen has written and this post is not the first of my attempt to challenge the Professor’s thinking with the hope of getting him to change his mind at least once.  I have disagreed with the Professor here, challenged him here and also here. I have to do this again, because the Professor has done his thing against the black poor child, again.

In light of the previous articles that the Professor has written, specifically referring to the so-called “white working class” schools, I ask that the Professor’s column be withdrawn, that he be re-called as a columnist on the grounds that it is offensive, insulting and it incites violence. Please consider the previous posts (hyperlinked above) where I ask the Professor to stop equating black pupils with lawlessness, thuggery and moral decay. Another Professor decried similar generalisations by saying: Islam does not beat women, Muslim men do. It is not that Professor Jansen does not get it, he gets it just fine. He wants to be offensive and insulting and for that reason, he should be denied the platform to do so. Like David Bullard, he must go and finance his own platform where he can continue to be offensive and insulting at his own cost.

Once again, like he has done on more than two separate occassions (that I know of), Professor Jansen insists that when black pupils (read poor black people - why else will rich black parents send their children to working class white schools?) are enrolled at a white school, they come with ill-discipline. In his own words: The white children had long left as black children dominated enrolments. The black youth coming to this school were those who routinely failed inside the township schools of Soweto and surrounds, or were pushed out because of their violent and disruptive behaviour.

The Professor could not be further from the truth. The black children who are enrolled in the schools that the Professor feels so deeply for, are those whose parents are trying to get out of the misery that is the township schools. The schools that the Professor describe in the very article where gun shots ring around the school or across the school playground. These are the schools in the areas of our country that Rev. Skosana describe as hell on earth. The schools that cannot expel the worst of pupils. These are the schools that the department of education in Gauteng tried to secure some years ago and bore the wrath of Julius Malema’s Cosas. The Professor will of course remember that famous and destructive march through the streets of Gauteng by Cosas, then led by Julius Malema. The Professor will remember that a child had been attacked at school, dragged off to a nearby open veld, killed and his body set alight. Enclosing the schools and insisting that the school gates be locked during school hours, was the Gauteng education department’s response to this gruesome event. An event many poor black parents seek to protect their children from by sending them to the very schools the Professor feels so deeply for.

The white children are removed from these schools for other reasons Prof. The discipline in these schools slip for other reasons Prof. The system fails these schools. Like the formerly Afrikaans universities fail black students who get attacked in the middle of the night. Attacks that are so violent that some end up in hospital. Like your university failed poor working mothers when they were humiliated by the white students you feel so deeply for. During my days at university I watched with amazement how lecturers avoided disciplining black students and then complaining among themselves about the lack of discipline among the students. It is lack of leadership, lack of courage for one’s convictions and not poor black children that is responsible for the decay that you feel so deeply about Prof.

The Professor feels for the school principal who visciously assaults a child. He says that’s the consequence of a violent society. This is a lot worse than one adult threatening violence of yesteryear on another adult, violence he is unlikely to carry out. The latter has the whole media fraternety feeling for her.

Dear Professor: I feel for the children who are beaten. I feel for the children who are blamed for their blackness and their poverty and for all that is bad.

I ask for leadership, I ask for courage, I ask for your column to be discontinued.

Another Sharpeville Day!

This blog owes its existence to the memory of Sharpeville Day (now crassly referred to as human rights day). Actually the name is not as crass as the politics that gives credence to renaming a day that is a turning point in the road that leads to Nelson Mandela being an icon to the exclusion of all others. By all accounts and from all points of view, this was a huge day!

As a student I organised the commemoration of this day in the residence where I lived. That was a long time ago. Long before the name was changed to human rights day. Back in the day when Black people knew who they were and no one, I mean nobody, was a “so-called” anything.

The commemoration was a short and small affair. Tim Hughes (as he then was) gave the keynote address or was it a talk, a lecture? He was imminently qualified for the task. Yes, he was a white Masters student at the time. The point of the commemoration was for us to hear, to debate and to learn. Tim outdid himself and the evening went well. To the surprise of the detractors, we did not after the affair go on a rampage to attack white students in our residence or cause any public disturbance or any other kind of disturbance. We hung around, chatted a little and retired to the pub.

Even back then, Sharpeville Day was a lesser of the other struggle days. It was a day students took off to catch up with life or to catch up with their studies or whatever else that may have go away from them. Then again this should be no surprise; Africanists were never a big deal. Do you remember that Africanist Lumumba? It all goes back to that house in Orlando West and the decisions that followed. The stand-off between the two groups, ready to kill each other over a disagreement (even enlist common thugs with guns in their fight for being the right organisation). It is so however that we tell the stories from our point of view - this is mine.

This Sharpeville Day comes when a lot has changed since those men and women lay sprawled life-less in the open veld in front of the Sharpeville police station. Back then the Pan Africanist Congress was a movement to be reckoned with. Tomorrow, when the day dawns on Sharpeville Day 2011, the PAC will be but a name in the memories of those who like me, wish for a different tomorrow. Such is the triumph of the non-racial project. How do you say BEE in non-racial language? Well, you say it the same way that you say that human rights day commemorates those who were killed on 21 March 1960. Such is the defeat of the anti-racist project.

Tomorrow will once again come with all the fanfare of rights and non-racialism – all born of the blood of those who would rather have anti-racism. Tomorrow will showcase all the values that have held Africa captive for all the years and will continue to do so going forward. These are the values that apparently seek to be inclusive of all South Africans. That they achieve inclusiveness at the expense of the majority of South Africans is just detail. It is reported that the President invited the leader of the opposition to join him at one of the events tomorrow. She turned him down. She will be addressing an event of her own, galvanising her supporters to protect the human rights that under the ANC government are under threat. She will as usual scare the electorate into voting for her party or at least try. All in all, tomorrow will be fun, as it has been the last 16 or so years.

I will in all probability be a bystander through all of the fanfare of tomorrow. I better be careful though; it is reported that the first victim of the 21 March 1960 massacre was a bystander who was on his way to work.

It's election time - Participate!

Some 22 years ago on a university campus, there reigned a policy of non-participation. This policy was imposed by a black students' organisation on the basis that all organisations and fora then in existence on this particular campus, were creation of white liberals and black students should not legitimise them by participating in such reactionary formations.

As is usually the case in the course of such noble struggles, some break rank. As it turned out 3 black students broke rank and stood for elections to participate in the house committee of the residence they stayed in. The 3 souls were promptly branded traitors and coconuts and all manner of other names. They were worse than the oppressors - they were collaborators!

As is further usually the case in these matters, the white students in that residence, true to their liberal non-racial values, promptly adopted the 3sum and volunteered their services as campaign managers, speech writers and pamphleteers. All 3 were duly elected to the house committee and as with most things South African, they became the first, the trailblazers, the traitors.

In the meantime the 3 bore and endured the brunt of coconut-hood. It was quite a surprise when a year later, the organisation that advocated non-participation, decided on the mother of all participations - it had candidates stand for SRC elections. And that is how the university got its first black SRC president - a comrade and activist educated at St. Johns College.

These more than 2 decades old incidents, continue to intrigue me. The argument of the 3 coconuts was that they could not but participate in the house committee because this is where they lived. If they do not participate they deprive themselves of the opportunity of influencing what happens where they live. After they were elected to the house committee the annual formal dance theme was changed from "Cotton Club" to "District Six".

Fast-forward to 2011 and the local elections. This is where we live and if we do not participate then we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to influence the decisions about our respective and different homes. The trick and difference between then and now is that we participate only in groups and never as individuals.

Somewhere in Luthuli House a list will be prepared of the appropriate cadres who will then be presented for endorsement by the people to occupy the various positions in the various municipal councils. Of course, these cadres will be presented to the communities for vetting before they are put up for election. Whatever the spin that is put on this, the ability of any given cadre is considered only if s/he is indeed a cadre. You are cadre first then a servant of the community second. This is not such an issue because the community is all for cadres anyways otherwise the community is just made up of agents. The will of the people is the will of the cadres and of the people is of the cadres.

So, don't miss the opportunity to participate! When the cadres are paraded for your consideration and approval - remember to disapprove when you don't believe the cadre to be up to it. This is about where you live, where the water should be available and clean. Where the refuse must be fetched regularly and sewage treated.

One more thing, make sure the cadre lives where s/he serves, it is the right thing to do.