During the Ukweshwama ritual, a traditional Zulu ritual that usually takes place at the end of the harvest season, a group of young men kill a bull with their bare hands. According to Animal Rights Africa (ARA) the ritual is rather cruel. ARA provides an eye witness account which states that:
For 40 minutes, dozens trampled the bellowing, groaning bull, wrenched its head around by the horns to try to break its neck, pulled its tongue out, stuffed sand in its mouth and even tried to tie its penis in a knot. Gleaming with sweat, they raised their arms in triumph and sang when the bull finally succumbed.
ARA has lodged an urgent application in the Pietermaritzburg High Court in an attempt to prevent that hardworking and frugal monarch, King Goodwill Zwelithini, as well as the Provincial government from conducting this ritual. ARA’s lawyer refused to provide me with a copy of its court papers, saying that the matter was “too sensitive”, but according to news reports, ARA will challenge the legality of the ritual on the basis that it contravenes the Animals Protection Act (71 of 1962). ARA will also rely on the right to dignity, the right to freedom of conscience and the right to an environment that is not harmful to a person’s health or well-being.
It is difficult to judge the constitutional law arguments presented by ARA as I have not seen its papers, but I would be rather surprised if any of these arguments fly. Our Bill of Rights contains a set of human rights protecting, well, the rights of HUMANS. Tough luck for the animals: us humans often kill and sometimes also eat animals because it is part of our culture.
There are of course good reasons why animals are not protected by the Bill of Rights. It would be impossible to decide which animal’s are to be protected (Do we protect only cute dogs and penguins – thus soothing our conscience – or do we also extend protection to scary snakes and disgusting cockroaches?)
Culturally, we also accept the torturing, killing and eating of animals but if animals have rights we will not be able to torture, eat and kill them. We will have to stop using Doom to get rid of flies, mosquitoes and ticks and flees, will have to allow cockroaches to roam freely in our houses and in restaurants, will have to close down abattoirs and stop wearing leather belts and shoes, and what would Archbishop Tutu do if we ban the quintessential South African pastime, the braai?
I suspect ARA will claim that the mistreatment of animals infringes not on the rights of animals, but on the rights of humans, as the ill treatment of animals affronts our dignity, our conscience and our well-being. We are all demeaned every time one of us is allowed to pull out the tongue of a bull (unless, perhaps, if it is a Blue Bull) or when we are allowed to tie its penis in a knot.
I find this argument hypocritical and culturally arrogant – to say the least. In our culture we accept the need to mistreat, kill and even eat animals – at least some of the time. Thus, we allow for the killing of cockroaches, say, because we think they are dirty (think District 9) and spread germs. Culturally we do not condone the killing of dogs though, because although dogs are also dirty and smelly, they can also be cute and friendly, wag their tales when we call them and bark at or even bite intruders. (Surely stomping on a cockroach can inflict severe pain on that cockroach but ARA will never object to that because its part of their culture to stomp on cockroaches.)
What ARA does not see is that our African culture allows for the Ukweshwama ritual, just like European culture allows for the extermination of cockroaches in Restaurants. ARA’s argument that culture does not come into this is therefore wrong. What the good folks at ARA cannot see is that our culture always mediates our treatment of animals and that their view of what constitutes cruelty to animals is based on a particular Western cultural experience.
In a process of “othering” the culture of those who are not like them (rural Zulu traditionalists) are attacked as cruel, while their own cultural commitments about the treatment of various animals (informed by Western notions of what is appropriate) are viewed as normal and not part of culture at all. For them, white people do not have culture – they just ARE – while “others” have culture that can be studied, criticised and outlawed.
Seeing that our Constitution guarantees for every person the right to enjoy their culture, I would imagine the constitutional arguments, rather than favouring the ARA application, instead supports the defenders of Ukweshwama.
It is of course true that the Animals Protection Act prohibits anyone from ill-treating, neglecting, infuriating, torturing, maiming or cruelly beating, kicking, goading or terrifying any animal. The Act also prohibits anyone from ”wantonly or unreasonably or negligently doing or omitting to do” anything that would cause “any unnecessary suffering to any animal”. But in as much as this Act fails to accommodate the cultural practices associated with Ukweshwama, the Act might very well be unconstitutional.
If I were King Goodwill and the KwaZulu-Natal government I would confront the ARA application with a claim that the sections of the Animals Protection Act are in contravention of section 31 of the Constitution and that far from supporting the ARA application, the Bill of Rights actually support the cultural p[practice now being attacked by a group of snooty, out of touch, hypocrites who cannot see how their own views on Ukweshwama is based on a disdain for the culture of others and an unquestioning and uncritical acceptance of their own culture.
Its not whether we eat or even kill animals, it is whether we take a humane approach to the act, a swift kill for example to avoid unnecessary suffering. All decent and skilled hunters, and for that matter most butchers, pride themselves on a so-called humane and immediate kill. Anything else is considered by the compassionate and enlightened as ’sloppy’ and uncaring.
Cannibalism was, and may well still be cultural, as is muti.
Consideration for the suffering of animals is vital. Those comfortable with carrying out cruel and unecessary suffering inevitably act the same way towards fellow humans.
Yes, this is Africa, but what a tired excuse. One might consider what the meaning of ’savage’ is (as a verb).
I totally agree with Sirjay.
To expand on the argument being about humane killing vs torture: if cockroaches were being pulled apart leg by leg and left to writhe on the floor in hours of agony, that would also be considered a problem.
A cockroach is considered a pest (in more than just one ‘culture’) and we have developed humane ways of killing them.
But this isn’t about cockroaches, it’s about culture you say. Just because something is part of a culture, doesn’t mean it should be respected. Remember fox hunting? That’s been banned because it’s cruel.
Prof, I couldn’t agree with you more.
Ines & Sirjay
If you don’t like our AFRICAN culture and you deem it inhumane, perhaps it’s time you start booking those one way tickets to those places where the inhabitants will share YOUR view of what is acceptable and what is not.
Stop prescribing to AFRICANS how they should live their lives. First it was circumcision, then virginity testing, now it’s animals, what’s next? Soon we’ll be told that the funerals are barbaric and inhumane because we let the deceased lie there for long hours whilst the whole family and extended family tell us (sometimes lying) about how good the deceased was!!
sirjay jonson says:
November 25, 2009 at 11:36 am
If you want to see some horrific treatment of animals, go to any abattoir.
“Cute” lambs hanging upside down from hooks in one leg slowly bleeding to death – nothing swift or humane about that.
Hunters kill animals for sheer pleasure – how can hunting be humane or decent?
Sport fishing as well has to be regarded in the same way – large fish and sharks are tempted with food, hooked, dragged from the water, often with gaffes stuck into them, measured, weighed then dumped back into the water injured and suffering.
What’s not brutal about that?
Ines and Sirjay, I agree that a claim that something is a cultural practice should not automatically immunise it from criticism. I also agree that some cultural practices are an affront to human rights. For example, as an Afrikaans white man I was brought up in a culture in which racism was celebrated. That was wrong. Some cultures believe homosexuality is an abomination. That too is wrong. What I object to is when people pretend to speak from a universal position but really are only endorsing their own feelings of cultural superiority.
Ok, Pierre I see where you’re coming from.
Mzo on the other hand is completely out of line. C’mon dude, we’re having a discussion about this, no need to pull the race card. It’s really getting old. I’m not talking from a cultural perspective. My outrage is for the animal and the way it’s being tortured. I don’t care who does it or why: it’s just wrong.
I agree, Maggs. I’m a vegetarian, I hate all animal cruelty including killing animals the “humane” way. For me, there is no humane way to kills animals. But we can’t stop people braaing for the rugby or eating Nyama Choma (sp?) in Kenya (goats for those who don’t know), so I’d rather support killing animals in a humane way than in the way this poor bull is going to be tortured.
This is hard, but i have no choice but to agree with Prof’s article. Not because it defends African culture, because he really applied the Constitution impartially this time around. speaking for myself, he did not allow his personal prejudice to cloud his judgment.
It admits of no debate that everyone’s culture is protected by the Constitution. In addition to section 31 of the Constitution, i would also recommend to the King, that he relies on section 15 of the Constitution as well, and section 2. People always talk about diversity yet when it suits them they oppose it because it does not tally with their Western ways. Opposing and challenging this culture is also an affront to diversity, which we always shout about.
Challenges that these highlight he underlying prejudices that still form part and parcel of present day RSA. That is why, i submit elsewhere that Reconciliation should have been a continuous project. Which would include educating people about say the cultural practices of their fellow South African, instilling national pride, etc.
Ines says:
November 25, 2009 at 12:43 pm
If there is really an intention to stop “brutalising” animals, the first step should be a called to end recreational hunting of any sort.
That of course won’t happen because of the big money behind the sport (or industry).
Although I eat meat, I come from a culture that is founded on respect for all living (and non-living) things.
Plants, for example, are not to be harvested after dark, not flowers, leaves nor fruit plucked, because the plants are alive and after dark is their time to rest – it would be really narrow (even selfish) of me or others like me to want to impose that on others whose perspectives on life are different.
I see Ines and others wants us to give the bulls or cows a lot of icecream and sweets, and then tickle it until it dies. The reality is that the bellowing of the animal or the bull is what forms part and parcel of the culture. It is symbolic of the belief that ancestors accept the animal that has been slaughered, and are happy with the event underway.
I think Ines misunderstands African Culture. What i mention above is common not only to Zulu speaking people but also to Xhosa speaking people and others. So it is a very central part of African culture. As a Zulu i will slaughter my bull or cow to pay homage to my ancestors. This is protected by the Constitution.
The view that it is cruelty to animals is a Western view that i note but is not binding to my culture. This is the same view that formed the basis for calling African culture barbaric. some things and people never change, even after 15 years of democracy. In my view, the government and other interested parties need to teach people like @Ines What the Constitution really mean and how it relates to everyday living, because clearly people are misguided on its impact and application.
Ines
I don’t recall saying anything about “the race card” (seems to be the easiest way to dismiss someone points these days, just say s/he “is pulling a race card” and you’ll be OK).
sirjay jonson says: November 25, 2009 at 11:36 am
“Yes, this is Africa, but what a tired excuse. One might consider what the meaning of ’savage’ is (as a verb).”
Ines says: November 25, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“I totally agree with Sirjay.”
This is what I have an issue with. Indeed this is AFRICA and, I repeat, if you have issues with how AFRICANS do things, go somewhere else.
By the way, the shoes, belts etc that Vegeterians use, where do these come from?
http://www1.american.edu/ted/babyseal.htm
I think I may not have made myself clear enough, Skhokho. For me, this isn’t a cultural issue. For me, the fact that an animal is killed is an issue. I did give the example of fox hunting, something I would oppose the same way as any other form of animal cruelty, regardless of the culture. Just the same with fox hunting (a former Western pastime), just because it’s in your culture, doesn’t mean it’s right and doesn’t mean it should be protected.
Also, the Western culture supports killing and maiming animals in the name of art. I don’t support that either.
If you tell me I need to consider your culture, it’s also important for you to look at the pain and suffering your culture is parcelling out on the bull. The fact that it bellows means it’s feeling pain and fear. My view is by no means a Western view, a culture in which one hangs animals upside down and slits their throats while still alive is not one I support.
Mzo, I don’t wear leather. And yes, I dismissed you, because you were a bit hysterical. I can read the word Africans whether or not you write the word in ALL CAPS.
What I agree with Sirjay with is this: “Consideration for the suffering of animals is vital. Those comfortable with carrying out cruel and unecessary suffering inevitably act the same way towards fellow humans.”
Well, maybe not the spelling error part.
Mzo, I will agree with both you and the Professor insofar as I too think that people who criticise cultural practices should be alive to the possibility that they could be moving from the assumption that their own cultural dictates enjoy some sort of privileged position. But as a counterweight to that caution, those people should, in my view, be allowed to scrutinise practices regardless of how dear those practices may be to whatever culture.
I will venture two points to amplify the foregoing. First, it does seem as if some people envision a hierarchy of norms. They see their own norms as being at the top of this pecking order and thus they appear to regard themselves as being in a position to dictate to others as to what those others should and should not do. This is, as I believe both you and the Professor rightly advance, immodest and, in the main, completely wrong-headed.
But secondly, I wonder whether it is possible to suspend partisanship towards or the influence of culture and to engage in a culture-neutral discussion. I suppose some may contend that my suggestion to this effect, of itself, suggests the partisanship towards and the influence of a culture. But be that as it may, I would like to think that awareness of this human vulnerability of identification with one’s culture could help to reduce the extent to which our cultures colour our views. I would like to say that (a) I think it may be possible to do so and (b), it may even be desirable to do so as if we were to succeed in that particular endeavour, we could rule out the possibility of cases in which people advance (either expressly or implicitly) that justifying a practice on the basis of culture renders the practice unassailable – which to my mind would be an unattractive state of affairs.
Let the Zulus have their ritual – one bull, reared for consumption, is not worth getting excited over. That said, I certainly wouldn’t want to eat the meat of a bull that has had an extended and very stressfull death, full of adrenaline, unhealthy.
Ines says:
November 25, 2009 at 13:23 pm
WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) is a super big thing.
People pay loads of money to watch two or more human beings brutalise each other with everything from fists, feet to tables and chairs.
Apparently the more brutality, pain, blood and suffering there is, the more attractive it is.
I dunno what the big deal is if people want to sacrifice an animal in a way that is worthy of their cultural perspective.
I won’t do it – but that does not mean I should tell others not to practise what is important to their spiritual values.
Ines, I tend heavily towards views which you seem to hold.
I believe in tolerance and respect for human dignity. Thus even where I disagree with cultural practices, I would like to think that I try to make a special effort to voice such disagreement respectfully. But against all of that, I do want to communicate plainly. So I have this to say: a cultural practice, regardless of how dear it may be to the members of the culture, may just be wrong.
As many will agree, human beings are hardly infallible. And it seems to me that it is human thought and endeavour that gives rise to the development of culture. Thus it seems quite clear that if human minds (which are imperfectly rational and thus capable of being wrong) give rise to culture, then surely cultural practices can be wrong.
I will make just two further points: for a start, one direction into which we could steer this discussion is: how could we determine whether a particular cultural practice is wrong?
Secondly, I will say that while I will agree with the Professor that a section 31 argument could well be levelled in opposition to ARA’s suit, section 31 rights can be justifiably limited in terms of the section 36 inquiry. Further, it is not completely inconceivable that the content of section 31 (2) could undermine a cultural-entitlement answer to ARA’s case.
Former justice director general Menzi Simelane has been appointed National Director for Public Prosecutions with effect from the December 1, the presidency said on Wednesday. – Sapa
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20091125150537827C422042
I wonder whether the truer issue here is that black South Africans are, by and large, completely unwilling to consider whether the content of their cultural practices could be objectionable. If so, well then their reluctance in this regard is certainly very understandable given our country’s dreadful history.
But the abovementioned reluctance also places our society in a decidely poor position to determine the cogency and tenability of various positions.
So my question to Mzo, Skhokho and anyone else who is at all cuturally partisan to the ritual in question is simply this: can you think of anything objectionable about causing severe and drawn-out suffering to an animal?
I would just add that even people who consume meat (as regrettable a practice as it may well be) can take exception to the infliction of brutal and protracted suffering on animals. That is, they may insist that animals be killed swiftly and with as little pain as possible.
Prof, good and analytically correct post. I also agree with you that the court is likely to find in favour of the accused in this case.
Mzo, I cannot agree more with you, particularly with regards to the second par of your second post.
The same goes for Maggs. Your first post is as moving as Mzo’s par cited above. Both of you are quite correct in my view. Maggs, your sport fishing example could not have been as relevant in this regards. This is one of the practice that ARA, if it is serious about protecting animals and cockroaches as Prof amusingly refer to in his post, would have picked up first and ran to court for recourse. And as Mzo says, if we allow ARA et al to continue as they are doing, we are soon going to see a court challenge on the way we conduct funerals proceedings and the period it takes to finally lay our loved ones to rest.
The problem I have with ARA is that, while they claim the entire continent of AFRICA as the focus of their organization, they do not appear to know how all the African cultures relates with animals, let alone their members having visited some of these countries and witnessed how animals are treated in the name of culture or tradition; do comparison and see if they would still challenge the good Goodwill Zwelithini in this regards. The first trip I would suggest they take would be to Kenya and Tanzania and see how the Massaai people in particular relate to both wild and domestic animals. Now their action seem to be self-serving than protecting the animals against cruelty.
Ines,
I apologise if I came across as being “a bit hysterical”. I am comforted by the fact that, by your own admission, it was only “a bit”…LOL….truce???
That being said, my views on this issue have not changed. For me it’s fine is you want to eat the green vegetables and all or if you don’t like the sound a cow makes when someone performs their dear rituals, however I have a problem when you want to impose your view on these issues on other people.
Just because you don’t like it does not make it right or wrong, it just means you don’t like, hence my suggestion that you should stay away from it.
@Ray
Slowly but surely we are getting to see that it pays to be economical with the truth. The benefits cary from being released from prison to being appoint the NDPP…only time will tell where we are heading (assuming we are not there already)!!
Oops
My apologies Mayimele. I have no idea how my post became yours – somehow my login credentials changed to yours. I’m technologically challenged, so I have no idea how this happened!!
Firstly, I agree with Sirjay that it is about a humane approach in killing animals for human consumption.
Secondly, I fully disagree with the glorification of animal sports for human pleasure respectively for traditional rituals as portrayed by Pierre. This “African-argument” is so hackneyed, I can vomit everytime I hear it simply because it is such an excuse for many things which are clearly wrong. It is wrong to ill-treat or torture an animal, inasmuch as it is wrong to mistreat and ill-treat or torture humans. It is wrong and false to maintain that “…culturally our society accepts torturing, killing … of animals”. This is flatly outrageous to maintain such a fallacious. I guess you would then also condone the willy-nilly killing and torturing of cats and dogs merely because some cultural group has over the years derived some pleasure in killing and torturing them.
Animals are not be human beings, but they certainly are living beings and all living beings have the right to protection – and precisely this is the fallacy in your argument Pierre: you forget that most living beings (if not all) have the right to protection. The statement that our culture accepts torture is rather far-fetched.
Ines is right in her distinction between insects and animals and that, although insects may be considered as “less important species” in the chain, they still, if considered environmentally and biologically precious, deserve protection from being killed and rotted out. I find no justification in your argument that our society accepts (and should accept) the torture and killing of animals. Certainly I’m not saying that animals should not be killed for human consumption. However, like Sirjay said; it’s al about a humane way of killing them so that the least amount of torture and pain exist when they are being killed.
Andy says:
November 25, 2009 at 17:21 pm
The arguments can be extended to all sorts of things that are unnatural.
Cattle branding by burning their butts with red hot branding irons is a painful, even torturous process – should that be stopped?
Should animals be allowed to be beasts of burden or used for entertainment in circuses or the like?
Race horses past their use-by date get turned into horse meat. Should horse racing be banned so that that abhorrent practice should end?
Should dolphins and Orcas be kept in custody under very unnatural conditions for human entertainment, swimming in waters concentrated with their urine and excrement?
I wonder: would it be ok to milk a cow? Is it not terribly degrading for a cow to have her breasts milked every morning? If we had different cultural commitments would we not possibly have branded this as barbaric torture of animals? My view is not – Andy, listen up! – that “culture” should always trump arguments about what is ethically acceptable. Rather, I believe that we often do not see how our view of what amounts to acceptable treatment of animals is not something “objective” but something influenced by our experience and cultural commitments. This allow for the hypocrisy and double standards I pointed to in the position of ARA.
What is this African culture you talk about? How do the Arabs of North Africa fit into it?
Myzo: Bro. Be at ease. This is not an issue of African white or African blue… its an issue about how we each personally view, act, and affect the world we are living within. It’s daily, this our active environment, and its made up of all creatures, those we know, and those we don’t, and perhaps we fail to recognize as physical, mental and emotional our many creatures,; and yes, even the bull in his majesty, suffers emensely while being torn to pieces, experiencing horror and terror. Regardless of my color, should I accept that?
Are we creating suffering in life, or are we creating security and ease?
What think you of the massacre in the Phillipines? Is that less than a bull mutilation ceremony? Or more? Who is to say?
Relax dude. We can differ. Life continues.
Homo sapiens (incidentally, there is nothing sapient about the species) is a mammal, primate, and an omnivore (biological adapted to eat both animals and plants).
Prof: Your last comment made me laugh so heartily. I milked cows from the age of seven… oh it is so sweet, and the cows love your for it… their udders get full you know and its awlful for them if not milked, they rely on you, otherwise they burst.
Well, I must admit, as a child running in the barn with my friends we used to have milk fights, squirting a full cows udder at each other and laughing, joyous…. those were the days… nothing like pulling their udders.
If you haven’t experienced fresh milk, fresh squeesed and squirted into your mouth from a healthy milker, while her ladyship’s tail swished about, flies buzzing, well you haven’t experienced life.
I know, off subject.
cheers, sirjay
@ Pierre
“For [the animal protectionists] white people do not have culture – they just ARE – while “others” have culture that can be studied, criticised and outlawed.”
Yes, Pierre, you are right — this is the universalising tendency of all cultures.
But what you will not admit, I am sure, is that universalistic pretensions of the human rights culture to which you are so passionately committed are no less fallacious.
The human rights discourse that insists that women are equal to men and that the death penalty is wrong is, ultimately, just another culture. Ultimately, the lines drawn or elided in human rights discourse are no less arbitrary than the distinction between furry and gross creatures drawn by the bunny-hugging litigants.
A Pierre – Obama seems not to have paid attention to your “(k)ill the beasts – but only if they are not cute”.
“Thanks to the intervention of Malia and Sasha — because I was planning to eat this sucker — Courage will be spared,” Obama said at the festive annual ceremony outside the White House
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/world/article209040.ece
Charles Darwin asks:
“What is this African culture you talk about? How do the Arabs of North Africa fit into it?”
Charles, I am surprised that you have not heard of the uniquely African culture of “Ubuntu.” While it may allow the occasional torture of bovines, it insist upon the inherent dignity of each human being — in a communal setting. each person’s core humanity being mediated through that of another. (Kant on steroids, if you will.)
As for the Arabs, I am afraid that they are colonialists, of the same ilk and white South Africans. They are neither spiritually nor genetically capable of embracing authentic African culture.
Michael: I do not agree that white people do not have culture. If you disagree with that, then look to the West, North America, the US and Canada which was establilshed by whites via British colonialism, long history and struggle with the French, yet succeeded, care to argue? Who can say that British Imperialism and colonionalism did not suceed in the US, Canada, Austrailia and New Zealand. And if you disagree, why do so many educated SefAfricans migrate there….
Rememberr this quote: there is no more difficult environment for a black african to live in than Africa… something we must think about.
White people do have culture… it is the culture of many races, many philosophies, many dreams, and it is the culture of the present West experiencing ultra success and possibly the only hope for survival, leading the world for those ever blind to recognizing their efforts.
Here in Africa, we need to grow up and take advantage of what is available, and that which is offered with true concern and care.
If we turn to the East, we turn to pseudo democratic totaliarism, not freedom in the true democratic sense, nor justice, all equal under the law.
Hi Mikhail
Torture is wrong, doesn’t matter if the victim is human, animal or cockroach.
Really disappointing article. Prof de Vos’s entire argument is based on the idea that the ARA is unaware that Western culture also sanctions cruelty to animals, and that therefore their criticism of the Ukweshama ritual can be explained only by cultural arrogance. But Prof de Vos’s claim is totally unsubstantiated and is itself arrogant — does he really think he knows more about the existence of animal cruelty than an organisation with the sole aim of alleviating cruelty to animals? Of course the ARA knows that Western culture endorses animal cruelty. That is why they’ve also made concerted efforts to prevent such Western practices as whaling and canned hunting. The more reasonable explanation is that their criticism of the Ukweshama ritual is based not on ethnocentrism but on the fact that this is a particularly cruel practice, where the violence inflicted on the animal is deliberate, unrestrained and wanton, and therefore probably outlawed by the Act.
But even if Prof’s argument is correct that the ARA’s criticism is ‘hypocritical’, the most that would follow is that both African AND Western attitudes to animals are reprehensible and immoral. The Ukweshama ritual would therefore remain open to justifiable criticism.
Far more disturbing, though, are the views of Mzo (and to a lesser extent Skhokho). These constant references to ‘my culture’, as if claiming a practice as part of one’s culture should insulate that practice from criticism, are infantile and self-serving. To see how pathetic this defence is, imagine that instead of Mzo claiming the moral highground for Africans it was a white colonialist saying:
“If you don’t like our WHITE culture and you deem it inhumane, perhaps it’s time you start booking those one way tickets to those places where the inhabitants will share YOUR view of what is acceptable and what is not.
Stop prescribing to WHITES how they should live their lives. First you stopped us from taking blacks as slaves, then you stopped us from discriminating against them through the system of apartheid. What next? Are you going to stop me from calling black people k***irs?
Considering myself superior to blacks is a very central part of my white culture. Criticising cruelty against blacks is an African view that I note but is not binding on my culture.”
In short, get over yourself and your culture, and recognise that long-held traditions can be immoral, and that therefore cultures can and should make a change for the better. The Aztecs believed they needed to make human sacrifices to please the gods, and Christians believed they needed to burn witches to please the gods. Both of these views we now consider to be obviously barbaric. It does not follow that these views were correct simply because they were a part of those respective cultures.
It is true that certain people look down upon African culture out of simple racism or ethnocentrism. But the fact that certain critics’ motives are bad does not mean that African culture (or any other culture) is beyond criticism. It is important for those being criticised to take seriously the criticisms, to educate themselves about, for example, animal rights, and to consider whether there are not less harmful ways of paying homage to the ancestors. It is equally important that the critics to be sensitive to pluralism and the right to be different, and to be just as vigilant in scrutinizing one’s own cultural practices.
Finally, as for the legal argument (quite unrelated to the relevant moral argument): all rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to s 36 limitations analysis, and s 31 is subject to the internal limitation of s 31(2) (and indeed the same internal limitation applies to s 15 according to the SCA in Nkosi v Buhrman). Therefore it is far from clear that the Constitution would protect the Ukweshama ritual. It is certainly possible that a Court would find that it does, but they could just as easily find the opposite.
Pierre, I cannot disagree with you more. You decry opposition to the ritual as the expression of a snooty ethnocentrism. But this does not take into account that (1) this ritual is much more cruel than the ‘Western’ practices you equate it with [a bull is a complex mammal capable of suffering in ways that the evidence does not suggest cockroaches are] and (2) that it is possible to perfectly consistently oppose all forms of cruelty. There are those of us who do not eat meat or wear leather precisely in order to prevent cruelty to animals — so the charge of inconsistency is unfair. Also, from the standpoint of logic, inconsistency does not automatically invalidate an argument. If I argue that it is wrong to perform the ritual killing of the bull because it will cause it suffering, but I nevertheless eat meat, I could be right about the bull and wrong about meat-eating. If I changed my view on the bull, that would make me consistent, but wrong on both counts! The same applies to those who condemn the eating of dogs in Korea but nevertheless eat mutton. The wrongness of sheep-eating does not excuse dog-eating.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
November 25, 2009 at 20:27 pm
Hey Dworky.
Now that we’re talking bull, it’s nice to see you!
How are you?
@ Maggs
Condoms crafted of stretched lamb skin: do they degrade baby sheep?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
November 26, 2009 at 7:09 am
“Condoms crafted of stretched lamb skin: do they degrade baby sheep?”
I haven’t seen any of those used by baby sheep, maybe the loose fits will be degrading, but since you’re suggesting “stretched” skins, the tight fit may well boost their egos.
Size matters, even to baby sheep.
Now that you raise it, maybe the nursery rhyme ought to be revised to “Baa baa Black Sheep, do you have any condoms?”
@ Eduard Grebe writes:
“it is possible to perfectly consistently oppose all forms of cruelty”
I think not.
Being a vegetarian does not get you off the hook. Any large scale agriculture entails the use of massive amounts of pesticides. The latter kill all sorts of animals — and not only bugs — in horrible fashion. Clearing land for agriculture involves the displacement and starvation of countless animals, large and small. Anyone who eats (other than from their own organic gardens), is morally implicated.
The Jains are so reverential of life that they sweep the ground in front of their feet to avoid trampling ants. But are they aware that, even as they sweep, their gastric secretions are dissolving billions of bacteria?
To live is to kill. Only suicide absolves us.
Michael Osborne says:
November 26, 2009 at 7:22 am
“Clearing land for agriculture involves the displacement and starvation of countless animals, large and small”.
Indeed.
Looking at the massive clearing of the Amazon forests to grow soya is testimony to that.
I would live to see vegans or vegetarians who refuse to eat soya that originated in the Amazon where animals and tribes have been displaced (and the rivers and tributaries polluted as a result) – even public campaigns would be a sign of consistency.
@ Sirjay
You misunderstand me. I agree of course that “white” people: have culture, and with Pierre’s point that the myopic naturalisation of white culture blinds people to the fact that it is, in fact, a culture, not some kind of neutral medium.
What I pointed out to Pierre is that, to the extent that we have any passionate moral commitments, that are immunised from cultural relativism, we are unavoidably guilty of the kind of false universalism that Pierre identifies in the ARA. (My view is that Pierre’s particular naturalism privileges the putatively universal human equality constructed by human rights discourse.)
Mayimele, I would like to offer a response to the post which you addressed to the Professor. But before I do, I would say that should you decide to respond, I hope that we can enjoy a dispassionate exchange.
You seem to take exception to ARA’s suit on the ground that it smacks of, as the Professor might say, cultural arrogance. The suit may, I suppose, conceal a measure of cultural immodesty. But I will not consider more earnestly whether it does because such an investigation is not my principal purpose here.
Rather, my chief goal here is to determine whether I am justified in taking exception to a view which in my view could be implicit in the stance to which Mzo and apparently you subscribe (although if I am wrong and your own view departs from Mzo’s in a relevant respect then I would appreciate some clarification from you). At the core of it, my gripe is simply this: where one refuses to brook challenges to the defensibility of cultural practices on the ground that the practices are part of one’s culture, one does not allow for the possibility that the practice in question could be wrong or at least questionable for compelling reasons.
Let me put this to you: should one accept that beliefs, however culturally-dear they may be, could be untrue or at least objectionable? Or, should one accept that if a belief is justified on the basis that it is part of one’s culture, it can only be right?
I tend very heavily toward the former. If we accept that practices are right if they are justified on the basis of culture, we destroy the distinction between truth on the one hand, and mere belief on the other. It seems to me that truth is determined by way of investigation whereas mere beliefs can be embraced without such exploration. And should we destroy that distinction, we deny ourselves the opportunity to test the validity of our beliefs and in short, we could thus ignorantly continue to do the wrong things.
How on earth is tying a bulls penis into a knot ever acceptable? How is that compared to killing a pest that spreads germs and disease?
I don’t believe that ritual killing in any custom is necessary, and when someone knows they are wrong, they will use any argument – no matter how stupid – to fight back!
Sipho says: November 25, 2009 at 21:44 pm
“In short, get over yourself and your culture, and recognise that long-held traditions can be immoral, and that therefore cultures can and should make a change for the better.”
“Immoral” by whose standards? ….and I suppose “the better” will be the Western way of doing….Yah neh!!
sirjay jonson says: November 25, 2009 at 20:40 pm
“Here in Africa, we need to grow up and take advantage of what is available, and that which is offered with true concern and care”
Here we go again, Africans are just immature and do not know what’s good for them. All they need is to GROW UP and learn from us.
If this does not make my point clear enough, nothing will!!
@ Mzo asks
“Immoral” by whose standards? ….”
Mzo is (absolutely) right.
No-one has the right to impose standards.
By whose “standards” are animal cruelty, colonialism and apartheid wrong, anyway?
That is why I am absolutist in only one respect: my absolute commitment to cultural relativism!
I’m surprised no one has mentioned bull-fighting. Perhaps the difference between bull-fighting, bear-baiting, dog-fighting (no, we don’t always find dogs that cute) and fox-hunting and Ukweshwama is that the latter is a ritual not performed apparently for sport. There is much ritual in bull-fighting, and its supporters will tell you it is not a sport but art, but whatever it is, bull-fighting and the others are all for human entertainment. They are violent sports in which one participant (or both) is a victim not a player. As opposed to the genteel games of rugby, bare knuckle boxing, wrestling, ice hockey and football spectating, where the players on both sides have chosen to be involved (ok, except in schoolboy rugby, where most of the violence is on the sidelines and some of the boys would rather be home playing Nintendo).
I wonder if people would view Ukweshwama differently if it was purely for sport rather than caught up in a cultural/religious ritual?
@Pierre
yeah i agree to a point with you, we all eat meat and so forth. In the states we have to respect the culture of the Native American Indians, esp the Makah Indian and there tradition for over 2000 yrs is killing a whale and its the gray whales to enter into manhood.
Now whale killing isnt there a problem with that?
Sipho says:
November 25, 2009 at 21:44 pm
“The Aztecs believed they needed to make human sacrifices to please the gods, and Christians believed they needed to burn witches to please the gods. Both of these views we now consider to be obviously barbaric. It does not follow that these views were correct simply because they were a part of those respective cultures.”
Would you believe that in this enlightened era, there are still people who believe that it’s ok to stone some criminals (even those suspected of infidelity) to death, cut off limbs for lesser offences – and that often is touted as something we in South Africa should emulate.
You may well be surprised to learn that there are some among us who think the solution to violent crime in South Africa is to hang those convicted of horrific crimes by their necks until they are dead!
Why do you say that the Aztecs human sacrifice was barbaric?
Sipho says:
November 25, 2009 at 21:44 pm
slamming post, love it. well done
Michael, forgive me if I have misconstrued the point which you addressed to the Professor at little earlier. You appear to say this: the human rights culture to which the Professor subscribes discloses universalistic pretensions. And given that it does, it is no less misguided than other cultures.
But what if it is the case that this human rights culture is the one culture that has (a) earnestly considered and then (b) successfully rebutted contrary positions? If so (and I am not saying that it is), well then could one argue that this human rights culture has earned something of a privileged position? Would it not be somewhat justified in rating other cultures against its dictates – at least until the demands of that human rights culture are undermined?
One could of course say that my suggested inquiry denotes that I am committed to some or other culture. But if we could suspend that concern for the time being, I would be interested to read your answer if you can spare the time.
@Mzo and @Fassbinder, i agree totally with your response to@Sipho.
@Sipho, i you joking, cause you sure sound like you are. From your post, its clear that if it were up to you slavery would be brought back, apartheird would be brought back, and all the other gross human rights violations that white people committed would be incorporated into everyday living.
Quiet frankly, it is people like you that are holding this country back. The mere fact that you think you are superior to Africans is nonsensical and should be rejected with the contempt it deserves. You are not superior to anyone
dude.
The truth of the matter is that the challenge underway is dommed for failure. this is because the bellowing of the cow or bull is a central feature of the culture, now this dispenses with the section 36 argument. In other words, you cannot server the bellowing without violating the cultural right in question.
@Leigh, i think most of your questions were answered in the Prince case(CC) by the well crafted judgement of Sachs J, in which he said :its not about whether we like or approve of a particular religion, the fact of the matter is that it is protected by the Constitution. To answer your question directly, NO. I dont care about whatever alleged pain animals may be feeling. After all, if i buy an animal, its my property, and i can do with it as i please.
Those who making a lot of noise about the so-called animal cruelty remind me of this philosopher, whose name i have forgotten, but he featured a lot in the course on jurisprudence. He argues that animals and plants have the same rights as humans, and therefore should not be eaten or destroyed. The question he does not answer is on what would we survive on then? what are we going to eat. phew! this guy is ridiculous to say the least.
Biko was right, blacks should be left alone to live their own existence, solve their own problems without, WITHOUT any interference from the so-called whites.This he said is because whites do not understand the unique existence and lived experiences of black people. I concur. I should point out that some blacks also behave like whites, as is evident from the posts in this blogg.
Skhokho Radebe says:
November 26, 2009 at 8:46 am
You missed understood siphos post he was putting a different spin on Mzo post if you bothered to finish readin it you would of seen this.
“In short, get over yourself and your culture, and recognise that long-held traditions can be immoral, and that therefore cultures can and should make a change for the better”
Your attack on him is actually unwarrented
If you want to make this type of argument then there is 2 things you need to look at
a) who will killing this animal inpact the enviroment?
b) has the Ukweshama ritual changed in anyway?
I think you need to take a step back i dont think people really have to much of a problem with killing cattle but aslong as the animal is distroyed in a human way, hence the arguments of chickens and cattle farming and slaughter houses wont held water as they have international food and safety standards to adhire to and it is strickly monitored esp how the animal is distroyed.
The Issue is they way the killing is carried out?? not so??
“Biko was right, blacks should be left alone to live their own existence, solve their own problems without, WITHOUT any interference from the so-called whites.This he said is because whites do not understand the unique existence and lived experiences of black people. I concur. I should point out that some blacks also behave like whites, as is evident from the posts in this blogg.”
However comments like that makes me wish you were still my slave but some how u developed rights go figure??
Skhokho and Mzo, I hope you two will consider three questions.
1. Do you accept that cultural practices are the produce of human minds and effort?
2. Do you accept that people can be mistaken about things due to, among other things, (a) failure to test assumptions and (b), reaching conclusions in the absence of relevant material that runs contrary to their views?
3. If you accept that culture is the produce of human thought and effort, and if you accept also that people can be wrong, then will you concede that cultural practices and dictates, being the produce of fallible beings, can simply be wrong?
@Mzo:
No-one said that the Western view was better. Stop concocting imperialist conspiracies where none exist. I pity you, having to carry around that massive chip on your shoulder.
And yes, everyone here realises that immorality is not written in the stars, but is to an extent subjective and shaped by culture. Stop using this platitude as if it is a clever observation which trumps others’ moral arguments. Or, if you do, bear in mind that it can be just as easily used to justify things like slavery, apartheid, and Nazism. Perhaps you would not be so quick to invoke it in those cases where it doesn’t serve your own interests.
@Michael Osborne:
Of course merely being alive means one is using resources, and therefore ‘guilty’ in some extremely broad sense of the word. But since it would be totally unreasonable to expect people to starve themselves to death to avoid using the earth’s resources, labelling such people who don’t as ‘morally implicated’ is not very helpful. The question is whether one is doing what is reasonably possible to refrain from eating foods which cause gross and avoidable harm. Since meat requires infinitely more resources to produce than other foods, the bare minimum is to be vegetarian. Surely it is consistent to say that we are under a moral obligation to avoid the most egregious and wasteful foods, but are not under a moral obligation to starve ourselves (or to eat only the food grown in our own organic gardens, which for many would mean gross malnourishment or utter starvation)?
Mzo, you are welcome. It happened to me too just a day or two ago. What I like is my post then became yours and now yours became mine. So it is Mzo 1 – Mayimele 1.
Aaaah, Jesus…! Mzo, I rest my case. The post above under your name is mine. I was trying to address exactly what has happened now that my post appear under your name and vise versa.
I quit…
@Skhokho:
As Chris McDaniel has said, you totally missed the point of my post if you think I want to bring back slavery and apartheid. My point was that the reasoning of Mzo could be used to justify bringing back slavery and apartheid, and therefore his reasoning is absurd. The fact that you think my post deserves ‘contempt’ and that I think I’m ’superior’ to others, as well as your anti-white rant, confirm the difficulties of trying to criticise African culture. It is understandable, given our history, that you are resistant to such criticisms. But please try and avoid the knee-jerk labelling of anyone who criticises you as an imperialist, or ‘black-behaving-like-a-white’. There are serious issues of animal cruelty here, that deserve to be seriously considered and not dismissed as a white conspiracy.
As for the legal argument, I agree that ‘you cannot sever the bellowing without violating the cultural right in question’. But that claim cannot possibly ‘dispense with the section 36 argument’, because s 36 is engaged only when a rights violation has in fact occurred. The whole point of s 36 is to recognise that some rights violations might be justifiable.
Also, it doesn’t follow from Sachs J’s judgment that any cultural practice whatsoever is legal (as you seem to suggest). All it indicates is that any illegality must be based not on imperialism or naked aesthetic preferences, but rather something more reasonable. In fact, the Prince case that you are so keen to cite is a perfect example of such considerations being held to trump cultural or religious rights; the Court found against Prince on the basis of s 36, notwithstanding the fact that his s 15 and 31 rights had been infringed.
@ Sipho
I was actually dealing with the strictly moral more than the broader environmental questions around vegetarianism.
My point was that vegetarians need to be careful about assuming the moral high ground, precisely because (non pastoral) agriculture is harmful in many ways that they may not appreciate.
But I also accept your point; harmfulness is a matter of degree, and we all have a duty to inform ourselves about relative harms and act accordingly.
@Leigh, i thought the questions that you now raise were answered by the Prince case(CC),minority judgement of Sachs J. Although the Prince case concerned mainly religion, i see a relationship especially when people talk about what is wrong.
Your questions above, are not coherent. It is a well-known fact that human beings are not perfect. However, that does not mean that they are wrong about their beliefs simply because those beliefs do not make sense to you, as you adore bulls and cows or because you dont understand those cultural practices. Yes culture is a product of human beings who created it. However, it does not follow from this that they were wrong in creating it and making assupmtions which you do not mention. Where is the evidence that they are fallible human being? Why are they fallible human beings? Why would culture be wrong? For me, as long as there are no violations of the Constitution, there is nothing wrong with culture. Because whatever moral high ground one can adopt, it for him to adopt, but cannot be binding on others. Which is the point made in the Prince case. Its not wrong because you dont like it, its wrong because it is against the Constitution.
I’m not particulaly fond of gays, but that does not mean i have to constantly attack them, violate their COnstitutional rights. I should and have found a way to live side by side with them and try and understand their preferences.
However, it does not suprise me anymore that everything that is African must be questioned and scrutinised. Why? Its simple, people have not accepted the fact that there is diversity and this sanctioned by the Constitution. It smacks of arrogance that people can have these preconceived ideas on issues they do not even understand. But such is the legacy of colonialism and its hangovers. Finally i refuse to explain my culture to someone who does not understand it, respect it, or wants it to exist. Again i dont care about the pain cows feel.
Sipho, you are probably wasting your time. And it is a pity that you are as you make good sense.
I will add a further point to your valid submission about the section 36 limitations inquiry: section 31 (2) actually amounts to an internal limitation in that it contemplates that the section 31 entitlements cannot be exercised in a way which is inconsistent with other rights in the BOR.
Skhokho Radebe says:
November 26, 2009 at 9:45 am
“Again i dont care about the pain cows feel”.
Does anybody truly care?
Chris McDaniel says:
“as they have international food and safety standards to adhire to and it is strickly monitored esp how the animal is distroyed”
Yeah right!
Have a look at http://www.peta.org.
@Skhokho:
to add further weight to this, western civilization has no room to speak on this matter we have been killing animals for traditional means for 1000s of yrs
you just need to look towards spain, south of france and portgual they do bull fighting can you imagen the arguments these guys are having?
Skhokho this is a south african tradition we talking about to bring in western views isnt gonna work.
I highly doubt anyone will have a problem if you carried on with your tradition esp if the animal is stunned first. Hell if Muslims stun there animals before they slaughter it.
so honestly has anyone got a problem if the animal is stunned first?
Unless this is more of a blood sport? cos also bear in mind bull fighting is banned in much of europe and it was also a tradition and is illegal and prisonment imposed due to cruelty to animals.
so I beg the question this Ukweshwama ritual is this a form of bull fighting? if so it amounts to cruelty to animals.
Chris McDaniel says:
November 26, 2009 at 9:53 am
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/11/16/a-bit-too-fresh-chinese-discover-way-to-keep-fish-alive-after-being-fried/
Maggs Naidu says:
November 26, 2009 at 9:52 am
com on
have a look at importing meat into europe have a look at the standards that need to be applied
have a look at the rights animals have before slaughter in europe
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/slaughter/index_en.htm
look at the passing of the bill in congress by the state of Illinois for the slaughter of horses in otherwards the banning of slaughtering horses.
Maggs Naidu says:
November 26, 2009 at 10:02 am
Maggs thats the chinies do we expect anything less from them? if it was legal they would eat there on aborted children with chop sticks
to further rest my case “Humane” Poultry Slaughter Bills Introduced in the U.S. in the 1990s
Maggs bear this in mind
Slaughter is different from processing in that the raw material is alive, has a central nervous system, can express emotional states, and has biological components like humans.”
an animal feels just as much pain as we do.
Chris McDaniel says:
November 26, 2009 at 10:08 am
Human foetus is considered a delicacy in some communities.
http://www.squidoo.com/eat-human-placenta
not for the squeamish!
Skhokho Radebe says: November 26, 2009 at 9:45 am
I concur. Leigh, there’s my answer to your earlier questions.
Leigh says: November 26, 2009 at 9:47 am
You and Sipho seem to miss a point that Prof made earlier, the BOR contains HUMAN rights, not animal rights. If you were to ask me, given the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law, I would say any right contained therein (like the cultural right) MUST surely take precedence over any other right, be it a right contained in the Animal Rights Act or whatever.
By the way Sipho, I think we are losing each other primarily because our focus is different. You are making GENERAL arguments but you do not actually say anything tangible on the issue at hand. Should the Zulu practice in issue in casu be challenged in Court or not?
On the other hand my arguments are limited to the cultural issue we are discussing now and I, unashamedly, believe that it is downright arrogant of this animal rights group to seek to effectively prescribe to the Zulu people how they should perform their ceremonies.
Of course you can disagree with me, life goes on. However, I can assure you, I am carrying no chip – maybe you should look on your own shoulder. The last time I checked slavery, Nazism and apartheid were not constitutionally protected rights, which is what I am fighting for, so your analogy does not really make much sense.
Skhokho, I sought to elicit from you whether it is possible for a cultural practice to be wrong – and if you read my questions carefully and fairly I sure that this will become clear to you.
You concede that human beings can be wrong. You concede also that culture is the produce of human conception and endeavour.
Two points are quite clear right now: first, you misunderstood the general thrust of my post – even though that thrust is quite straightforward.
Secondly, in the light of the concessions which you have made, it seems clear that in the absence of an argument that could well prove to be intriguing, you must concede that it is possible for a cultural practice to be wrong. That is, if people give rise to culture, and if people can be wrong, then that to which they give rise (culture) can possibly be wrong.
One point which I and many others have sought to advance during the course of this discussion is that the fact that a practice is described as cultural should not mean that it enjoys blanket protection against scrutiny and criticism.
I would also caution that constitutional inconsistency is not the only basis upon which one could criticise a practice. If one wanted to make out a case that the practice in question impaired constitutionally protected rights, then yes, one would allege and seek to show that the practice was at odds with whatever constitutional provision. But it is possible that people could discover other compelling grounds for objection that are not contemplated by our constitution.
@ Mzo
“This is what I have an issue with. Indeed this is AFRICA and, I repeat, if you have issues with how AFRICANS do things, go somewhere else.” Mzo
“If you don’t like our AFRICAN culture and you deem it inhumane, perhaps it’s time you start booking those one way tickets to those places where the inhabitants will share YOUR view of what is acceptable and what is not.” Mzo
“Stop prescribing to AFRICANS how they should live their lives. First it was circumcision, then virginity testing, now it’s animals, what’s next? Soon we’ll be told that the funerals are barbaric and inhumane because we let the deceased lie there for long hours whilst the whole family and extended family tell us (sometimes lying) about how good the deceased was!!” Mzo
When Sipho and I made submissions and posed questions, we did so, in the main, in relation to the above statements which you made. It seems both Sipho and I infered that you were trying to render cultural views invulnerable to scrutiny purely because they are cultural. I think that given the content of the above statements, we were both justified in drawing that inference.
In your post addressed to Sipho, Skhokho and me, you resort to a constitutional argument to justify your opposition to criticisms levelled against the relevant ritual. Therefore, it seems that you are saying something which is different from the position with which Sipho and I took issue. And that is not fair to us inasmuch as you have not dealt with the grievances that we have with what we saw as a reasonable interpretation of the first position that you defended.
@Mzo:
“The last time I checked slavery, Nazism and apartheid were not constitutionally protected rights, which is what I am fighting for, so your analogy does not really make much sense.”
The Ukweshama ritual is not explicitly protected either. What the Constitution does protect is “the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion”, and the right of persons “to enjoy their culture”. The problem for your approach is that slavery, Nazism and apartheid could just as easily form part of a person’s beliefs or cultural convictions as could the Ukweshama ritual. Therefore, insulating the Ukweshama ritual from criticism in the manner which you aim to could just as easily insulate slavery, Nazism and apartheid from criticism. Presumably you can see how ridiculous it would be to defend slavery, Nazism and apartheid on this basis, but if so it is not clear how you can reasonably persist in defending the Ukweshama ritual on that same basis. In other words, your simplistic attempt to vindicate ‘constitutionally protected rights’ applies equally to the right of persons to practice slavery, Nazism and apartheid.
Sipho says: November 26, 2009 at 11:15 am
If you are going to have a hypothetical argument, be my guest. Ukweshwama is a CULTURAL ritual. Slavery, Nazism or apartheid are NOT. If you want to argue otherwise, perhaps we should leave this debate here because we will never find common ground.
I have never been a fan of philosophical arguments, so if you want to go down that route, I think Michael is the best person you should be debating with.
Leigh says: November 26, 2009 at 10:53 am
Is there anything that I said in my previous posts that is inconsistent with my post at 10:14? If there is, please point it out for me because even on the quotes above I still can’t see any inconsistency. If there isn’t, I would then argue that it is similarly not fair to blame me for your apparent misconception of my views.
By the way I see that Sipho did not answer my question, deliberately so or otherwise. I will give it another shot and this time extend it to you Leigh: Should the Zulu practice in issue in casu be challenged in Court or not?
Mzo, I did not say that the communications in your posts are inconsistent with each other. I said that they are different from each other. And as you will know, different points are not necessarily inconsistent.
I think that you made two points – which, on the face of it, do not appear to be inconsistent with each other. Your first point can, in my view, be reasonably inferred from your statements which I quoted a little earlier. It is this: people in South Africa who do not endorse African cultural practices have no business taking issue with those practices. This view effectively renders African cultural practices invulnerable to reproach. Further, some people may well contend that this approach amounts to an implication that the cultural practices cannot be wrong (or at least questionable).
Your second point (which is reflected in your 10:14 post) is that a right contained in the BOR should trump a right contemplated in some other statute given that the constitution is the supreme law in the country.
One difference between the two points is that the first is not a constitutional argument whereas the second is. My submissions and questions throughout this exchange have mostly been geared towards that first of those points – and I understood much (but not all) of Sipho’s contributions to go to the first of the two abovementioned points too.
I will provide the question which you have asked me to answer: “Should the Zulu practice in issue in casu be challenged in Court or not?”
I do not really know how to answer this question. For a start, I am sympathetic to the following position: if the case has any basis in constitutional law, then even if it is motivated by wrong-headed notions of cultural arrogance, I am not sure that I should take issue with the litigant trying to make out a case.
But secondly, if the constitutional law basis of the suit is feeble and contrived, then speaking as someone who tries to value tolerance and who generally takes exception to vexatious and frivolous litigation, I may well argue (after having had more of a chance to think this through) that pursuing the suit is wrong.
Leigh says: November 26, 2009 at 14:29 pm
You have obviously miscontrued my views or, at best, your summary of my views is incorrect. Perhaps I’m guilty of not having spelt it out more clearly. I will concede that much.
“people in South Africa who do not endorse African cultural practices have no business taking issue with those practices”
This is NOT my view. My view runs something like this, to steal from your sentence construction: people in SA who are not prepared to TOLERATE and better understand African cultural practices but would rather impose their own views of what is right or wrong have no business taking issue with those African practices.
I am fortified in this view by our Constitution which, as I read it, required us to respect and tolerate people’s cultural beliefs. It does not extend that protection to animals!!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
November 26, 2009 at 7:47 am
@ Mzo asks
“Immoral” by whose standards? ….”
Mzo is (absolutely) right.
No-one has the right to impose standards.
By whose “standards” are animal cruelty, colonialism and apartheid wrong, anyway?
That is why I am absolutist in only one respect: my absolute commitment to cultural relativism!
And slavery for that matter!!
Leigh, thanks for the response.
I agree with you that we should not use culture to shut the door for challenges that might be relevant and correct to consider. I also agree that it will be incorrect to argue that before ARA challenges our (Africa) cultural behaviour and practices relating to animals they must first conduct a continent-wide research and investigation. Putting such an argument forward would be the same as arguing that if one is not married then he or she cannot be a marriage counselor or comment on marriage issues. My point is ARA must be consistent and be objective. As Mzo and Maggs have demonstrated on the posts that I have cited above, there are some of the horrible practices that are happening right before their noses yet they are not SAYING (not challenging them legally) anything about them. And it is possible that some of their members or family members are participating and benefiting from such activities as sport fishing. This therefore, amounts to unfair treatment and selective prosecution that could only be self-serving at the expense of victims.
In the whole, I share Siraj’s view that it is not about killing and eating but rather the how; in which case a humane approach to killing is correctly advanced. And I also agree with you in most of the points you raised in this post inasmuch as in the other posts in your engagement with the other colleagues.
Well, I’m a weirdo in this issue. For example, I’m totally against fishing(can’t imagine having sharp metal inside my mouth for a while then suffocating to death when it’s removed)….I’m against a lot of other things but I’m inclined to the Ukushwama proponents’ views. I believe that considering its relevance(spiritual) and how often it’s done(only once per year and only one cow I believe), it should stay. Whether we like it or not, we will torture animals to survive. As stated before, I’m totally against how I get the fish I eat every week….it doesn’t mean I should tell others what to do. It simply means I should work hard at my career so that I never have to fish for survival : ). But honestly people…..I’d understand if every culture in SA did ukushwama…and if it was done more often and to many cows/bulls. But under current circumstances….what the hell?! I’d rather those ARA people work hard to stop fishing for recreational purposes, and to prevent live chickens from being sold to consumers so that there’s no slaughtering involved. And to those against ukushwama, I wonder how they feel about a rat being killed. I mean, that thing is rather big…u can feel the contact if u knock it with a blunt object, yet the first thing one does when it’s in their home is try to kill it with the nearest object available. In closing, I’m against frequent brutal/senseless or recreational/ avoidable killing of animals(even a cockroach I try to shoo away before I kill)….but I’m not against one bull being sacrificed every year somewhere I’ll never visit for spiritual purposes. One is also inclined to wonder if the fact that many who oppose this do not believe in those spirits being worshiped plays a role in them sounding the way they do. I’m atheist but I’m not against people practicing rituals for spiritual fulfillment, provided it is not to other humans(like trying to drown someone aka baptising). And to those who reacted to Mzi and Skhokho’s posts…you must understand that condescending differs from criticizing. You and I can say the same thing, but due to our tone and language sound completely different in views. It is unfortunate(though I’m stereotyping) that many white South Africans in forums like this one, News24 and the like choose to condescend/insult and hide under us who actually criticize. For example, there’s no reason at all why u should call ukushwama barbaric infront of those who support it….basically calling them barbarians. That oversteps the line and actually abuses the right to share an opinion. My last two sentences are a little racist but I believe they’re worth mentioning in this post.
Mzo, thank you for your response and for the clarification you made.
You mention three related attributes which, by your reckoning, would disqualify people from being able to take issue with African practices: the first is intolerance, the second is unwillingness to try to understand African culture and the third is the arrogant tendency to impose their own practices and views.
It could be the case that other people share your views. If so, I would like to invite them (along with you) to consider the following when and of course if you can find the time: person A is, speaking very loosely, committed to Western culture. Person B subscribes to an indigenous African culture. Person A makes a sincere effort to tolerate other cultures and to understand cultural practices which are different from hers. But despite her earnest attempts at tolerance and understanding, she nonetheless believes that she has identified cogent grounds for taking exception to B’s cultural practice.
Leaving aside the fairly narrow constitutional law points raised in this discussion and thus expanding this discourse (as a few others and I have sought to do throughout this discussion) to the broader possibility that some people just will not countenance any criticism of their cultures regardless of how openly, sincerely and respectfully such reproach is made, my question is this: should B consider A’s concerns? (Bearing in mind that B would know full well that (i), A would be willing to entertain B’s concerns about the formers culture and (ii), even though different cultures may subscribe to different norms, it could be possible to identify a basis on which those different norms could be compared so that the most defensible norms could be identified.)
As a rookie at training camp in Quatro, I recall being wrestled to the ground by six strong young cadres — and had my member tied in a double knot. This was just because I complained about the standard of ideological training we were receiving.
Although humiliating, and causing great inconvenience, I accepted the incident as part of the “culture” of Camp Quatro at the time. And I can tell you this — no white liberal do-gooders raised their voices on my behalf!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
November 27, 2009 at 13:04 pm
“and had my member tied in a double knot”.
Liar!
Great post Prof.
Needless to say, I concur with Mzo and Skhokho Radebe.
Mayimele, I like your compromise.
It is interesting how less people know about cultural practices that they take issue with. A good example is this cultural practice called Ukushwema (Zulu). Xhosas practise it as well.
PS: I think the application to court is “dead in the water”. (Quoting Prof. on the Hlophe application about the Concourt judges having breached his Constitutional rights by releasing the statement prematurely)
Prof De Vos, i totally disagree with you
it is about the human (and your ) unquestioning belief that everything not human is ‘other’ , you cannot consider the concept of ‘equal consideration’ for all living sentient beings. This application questions not only this cultural practice, but all cultural practices, western included , every convenient act , non-act of the human superiority complex.
Just because it is a Zulu cultural act being questioned (this time) does not make those doing the questioning snooty or racist. You should attack the argument , not the arguer.
Prof. et al
I refer to my previous post (Sne @ December 1, 2009 at 8:52 am).
I withdraw my support of the Ukweshwema ritual. We, Xhosa do have a ritual which is designed to achieve a similar purpose but we do it by not killing the bull with our bare hands but by slaughtering it in a less cruel manner because we simply slit its throat.
I wish to say thanks for attacking me and others who defended the ritual of ukweshwama. Now the court has also agreed with us. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I guess we cant all understand the complexies of Constitutional law and the Constitution or were you disagreeing for the same of disagrreing?
@ Skhokho Radebe
I cant wait to read the relevant judgment…
@Sne, me too, me too. i will keep on checking http://www.saflii.org.za for it.I will also save it for my own record and for use in the future. All that wasted money on a bigggggggg legal team, for what? hhayi these people have money to waste.
Skhokho writes
“Now the court has also agreed with us. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!”
Skhokho is right.
The neo-imperialist white-liberal racist bull-worshippers have been exposed for what they are: constitutional monkeys and colonial sentimentalists.
White racists must not forrget: Zulus have engaged in this tradition for more than 17 000 years now.
And where are the liberals when panicked bulls are harassed on the cobblestone streets of Pamplona every year?
[...] An eyewitness account of the 2007 ritual by blogger Wizzy. Pierre de Vos at Constitutionally Speaking also addresses the [...]