Met 24 September om die draai wonder ISMAIL LAGARDIEN oor watter erfenis hy en ander Maleier-nasate in Suid-Afrika moet vier. Dis asof daar net nooit ’n boksie is wat hy kan afmerk nie. Waar ‘belong’ die Maleiers nou eintlik?
OP 24 September trek Suid-Afrikaners laer om “erfenis” en indrukke van wat hulle as hul etniese identiteit beskou. Erfenisdag is ’n post-apartheid-sameflansing met ’n ietsie vir almal, and then some. “Nog boerewors vir tannie?” Die hemel help ons, maar dis hoe dit is.
Dus: Joodse mense besoek hul Joodse vriende en familie. Die Xhosas, Zoeloes of Bapedi gaan “huis toe” – die versamelnaam vir hul plekke van familieherkoms, van Cofimvaba in die Oos-Kaap na Moutse in Limpopo. Afrikaners, natuurlik, is alomplesierig en hou jolyt net waar hulle is.
Maar wat van die bruin mense? Waar pas die bruines in? (Ek raak hiermee plegtig van “sogenaamde” ontslae, want daar’s nog baie om te lees en skryf).
Ons is diegene wat eens beskryf is as die “leftovers” – die resultaat van wit mans wat swart vroue verkrag het in die jare van vroeë Europese nedersetting aan die Kaap. Wat is die erfenis wat óns vier? (Read Further/Lees Verder)
WOENSDAG het ek vriende en familie besoek op die Kaapse Vlakte: van Athlone tot Manenberg, Mitchells Plain tot Delft. Die geluide van die Flats, die gekreun van verbrandingsenjins, die gekraak van eenvoudige skuilings, die skynbaar misplaaste geskreeu van ’n seevoël, die onophoudelike toetgeluide van taxi’s, die reuk van kos, en op plekke die dampe van imbawula, ou verfdromme met gate waarin daar vuur gemaak word om te kook … (Lees Verder)
South African society bears the most burdensome legacy of its racist and often totalitarian past. While it is easy to reference that past, and reflect on what seems to be a collective neurosis of our time, there is a powerful undercurrent that threatens to rip the country apart. More correctly, there are powerful social forces that threaten “outsiders” – people whom African nationalists, chauvinists and neo-puritans (those who would insist that non-African blood is poisonous) – with pogroms, erasure and possibly expulsion from the country.
Two things about these forces stand out. The one is the permissibility of “revenge,” based on past suffering, and now couched in terms of restorative justice and rolling back the iniquities of the past. The other is that the threats are concealed beneath what have become quite tiresome rhetoric and discourse of “non-racialism” democracy or constitutionalism.
These are strong claims, but members and leaders of the ruling African National Congress (ANC), its allies (as well as cadres they have deployed across institutions) have repeatedly showed some of the worst, most violent and often quite dangerous tendencies and traits – then hastily covered them up with platitudes. One key to their thinking is probably the way they have retained the apartheid state’s population registration laws, which established a sliding scale of privilege and justice, based on racial hierarchies in democratic South Africa. What this means is that if you’re non-African (or you have not fought with the ruling ANC in the struggle against apartheid) you cannot enjoy freedom and justice – or you qualify for lesser quantities of justice and freedom. Some leading figures in the ANC alliance are less subtle in their endorsement of the worst kind of dangers and threats to society.
The expulsion of non-Africans will probably remain undesirable, so to speak, because the biblical politics of revenge (where the children have to be punished for the sins of the father) would insist that non-Africans remain in the country, so that they may be punished and suffer the way that Africans have suffered. The most public expressions of this politics of revenge are from among the leadership of the EFF – most notably Julius Malema and Floyd Shivambu – who have expressed their loathing of non-Africans, non-African ideas, and revealed their own crypto-fascism and totalitarianism in the subtlest and most insidious of ways. They have on various occasions referred to “white bitches” to Indian people as “dogs” (Malema specifically referred to Pravin Gordhan, as “a rotten fruit from a rotten tree”) or “sell-outs” and threatened non-Africans in the most blood-chilling manner. This is the political formation that Barney Pityana, founding chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, voted for. It probably makes sense that the Human Rights Commission has ignored most of the EFF and Malema’s rhetoric and threats.
Whereas the EFF are quite overt in their propaganda, Pityana has shown that there are members of the ruling elite who live vicariously through the words of Malema, Shivambu and Mpofu. Also, the ANC and its allies have in recent weeks romanced Malema, and urged him to return to the ANC where they would have us believe he belonged. This is the context in which Pityana’s vote for the EFF may be viewed.
In subtle and overt ways, the most senior members of the EFF have threatened political opponents, journalists and public figures with violence and bloodshed, while politicians, police, prosecuting authorities and even politically independent bodies like the South African Human Rights Commissionhave remained petrified. The Human Rights Commission was established under the Human Rights Commission Act 54 of 1994, as provided for by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993. The SAHR describes itself as “the national institution established to support constitutional democracy. It is committed to promote respect for, observance of and protection of human rights for everyone without fear or favour,” but has failed or refused to address Malema’s rhetoric of violence and carefully phrased threats of bloodshed.
In an opinion-piece published a week before the country’s sixth democratic election, Pityana admitted to having previously voted for the EFF, because he believed that they “brought dynamism and chutzpah to our national politics and I admired young people who believed passionately in what they were doing. For that [the] EFF had my vote,” Pityana said.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) present the clearest and most ominous of dangers to South African society. In any constitutional democracy, the EFF’s policies, expressed by their leader, Julius Malema, in chilling language, rhetoric and vulgarity, and reminiscent of the worst dictators of the past 100 years, should drive their politics to outer periphery of discourse. When one compares the similarities of propaganda and populist recruitment of Malema and Adolf Hitler, it becomes clear that the EFF pose a unique and very violent threat to South African society.
The question now, is this: Would Barney Pityana Have Voted for Nazi Youth because they brought “dynamism and chutzpah” (bad choice of words on his part) to German Politics in the 1930s?
Hitler, like Malema and the EFF, “projected purpose and dynamism”. Hitler “issued an endless stream of slogans to win potential supporters over” and promised to give Germans jobs, revive the country’s industries rusting industries crushed by earlier policies and promised to crush the alien ideologies. The German historian and journalist Volker Ullrich historian explained how Hitler used “used vulgar comparisons” during speeches. Consider any of the crude insults and slogans Malema has used against political opponents, journalists and inividuals, and you get a sense of the danger he represents to society.
Perhaps Pityana and Malema’s ANC paramours should take time to reflect on the parallels between Hitler’s mobilisation of disaffected young people, and the EFF leaders insults of opposing politicians, journalists and people who disagreed with him, in general. Recall that he told a political opponent, quite recently, that he would place two necklaces around him.
The question, again, is would Pityana have voted for the Nazi youth because they brought “dynamism and chutzpah” to German national politics in the 1920s, and because the “believed passionately in what they were doing”? These were the words Pityana used to explain why he voted for the EFF. We should remind ourselves that in May 1928, Hitler was a political nobody. The Nazis gained less than 3 percent of the vote in national elections. Within four or five years – by July 1932 – they won 37 percent of the vote, and six months later, Hitler was in power. We know what happened next.
South Africa is on the cusp of very significant historical changes. The single most dangerous political formation is the EFF. And Barney Pityana, the founding chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, voted for them. Like most ANC leaders, Pityana probably does not care what anyone thinks. It’s their time to eat, and the time for non-Africans to suffer for the sins of their fathers – or whatever else they use to justify the creeping fascism, apparent cruelty and blood-chilling threats of violence. Barney Pityana voted for them.
13 June 2017 It’s always amusing when the people who got us into trouble assure us they can get us out of trouble. It’s amusing, also, when they tell the poor that things will get better, someday, and always they speak with full bellies. Bertolt Brecht explained that a lot more eloquently.
Before us, now, we have a Cabinet Minister, Malusi Gigaba, freshly risen from the gaudy comforts that surround him, telling us, the great unwashed, the toothless peons, the lickspittles and sycophants, all of us, that things will get better. If only we ignored the putrid stench of corruption, cronyism, prebendialism, avarice, greed, the sounds of crying, chests clogged with smoke along the Southern Cape, wells and dams that have run dry, and the never-ending ricochet of shots fired in the fields of Marikana. These, he tells us, are “sideshows”. What is important, ah so conveniently the truth can be sometimes, is getting the economy working again. Of course, he is right, but it is he, and his party loyalists, who got us to where we are. Mr Brecht gave us insights into this.
The echoes of that other, “sideshow” are powerful; the truth about Washington’s secret and illegal war against the people of Cambodia from 1969 to 1973. Those other odious fellows, Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon, treated Cambodia as a sideshow. They claimed that secretly bombing people in Cambodia was necessary, and tried to deflect the truth: that the bombings spread the conflict, and led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the subsequent massacre of a third of Cambodia’s population.
In a review of Kissinger’s White House Years, William Berman cut close the bone.
“This obsessively detailed, shrewdly propagandistic, maliciously discerning, and artfully self-serving work is surely a most important contribution to the historical literature of our time. … the man’s vulgarity and amorality … remind us, again, of the obscene role he played in the early seventies in promoting fresh disasters in Indochina, Chile, and South Asia.”
Like the old dog Kissinger, when Gigaba speaks, I quiver. I laugh, also, sardonically, whenever he speaks. The minister is a bespoke-tailored fellow. He will have nothing to do with that standardised and quite tasteless clothes of utopian inelegance; that prozodezhda is not his style. Clothes are not for wearing, it is for making ideological statements.
Some people rise to the task before them, others remain in its shade, and quite unable, themselves, to cast a shadow. There are a few marvellous passages from The Fool, by Gilbert Chesterton, that really sums up the fellow, Gigaba.
“For many years I had sought him, and at last I found him in a club. I had been told that he was everywhere; but I had almost begun to think that he was nowhere. I had been assured that there were millions of him; but before my late discovery I inclined to think that there were none of him. After my late discovery I am sure that there is one; and I incline to think that there are several, say, a few hundreds; but unfortunately most of them occupying important positions. When I say “him,” I mean the entire idiot…
He was very well dressed… his clothes suggested the City and his gray moustaches the Army; but the whole suggested that he did not really belong to either, but was one of those who dabble in shares and who play at soldiers. There was some third element about him that was neither mercantile nor military. His manners were a shade too gentlemanly to be quite those of a gentleman.”
Where, you might ask, does all the wisdom come from? Surely that which he spews is mere frippery. It is, at best, lexical legerdemain; he knows how to arrange words cutely. Like a swaddling infant he speaks in sentences that only he can understand. He is like those among us who can recite passages of script in Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Arabic, but really have no idea what we are saying. We know, only that we are the voice of our god. Gigaba is unimaginative, unoriginal, uncreative, and complete in his mediocrity.
Everywhere he goes there is that “powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity” and “There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity!” Big Daddy Pollitt reminded us, in Richard Brooks’ Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.
Mr Gigaba, alas, he is the counter-point of Nietzsche’s Übermensch, the one who is willing to risk everything for the enhancement of humanity. He is, in some way, Nietzsche’s “last man”, whose sole desire is to increase his own comfort and is quite incapable of creating anything beyond what he wants for himself. (Donald Trump is probably the best exemplar)
The only value of his life is his own value, projected, as Mr Chesterton said, a bit too gentlemanly to be a gentleman. Nietzsche’s last man is incapable of shame, he is the shame. Like a camel, he cannot see the hump on his own back. The sideshows tell us more than the main attraction, to which our attentions are forced.