Former President Thabo Mbeki used to be fond of lambasting his critics for their failure to grasp the “objective reality” about any number of important issues. He would perceptively highlight and analyse the ways in which objectionable master narratives influence the way we perceive reality before claiming to be free from the grip of such narratives and thus (unlike us mere mortals) to have full access to the “objective reality” the rest of us just could not see – usually in an attempt to defend the indefensible actions of his government or himself.
Thus he would write a brilliant analysis of the ways in which a kind of Afro-pessimism and racism influenced the discourse in South Africa on crime and corruption, and how such discourses reflected the fears and prejudices of “some among us”, before abusing this insight to make completely laughable claims to defend himself and his government from the valid criticism leveled against it.
He would point out, correctly in my view, that fears about crime was entwined with some people’s fears about a black run government and that perceptions about crime could not be divorced from perceptions about the so called criminality of black men. When many white people spoke about crime this was a way for them to express their racism and fears about black people in a more “acceptable” manner. But then he would go on a tangent and claim that crime was not really a problem at all in our country and that complaints about crime itself was just a matter of perception not linked to any “objective reality”: who would ever be robbed walking to the SABC studios he once mocked, just a few days before a journalist from CNN and his wife were robbed at gunpoint outside the SABC studios in Auckland Park!
He would point out, once again correctly in my view, that negative, deeply embedded, but often unspoken assumptions about Africa and how Africans are “naturally” corrupt clouded the vision of “some among us” about the prevalence of corruption in South Africa. But then he would rail against the “fishers of corrupt men” in the media and deny that there was a corruption problem in South Africa at all. After all, the “objective reality” according to Thabo Mbeki was that there was no arms deal corruption, that municipal officials (all disciplined cadres of the ANC) almost never stole public funds, that officials of the Department of Home Affairs were almost all imbued with the spirit of Batho Pele.
He also pointed out, correctly in my view, that Pharmaceutical companies are often unethical and exploitative and care more about profits than about the health of people in poor nations. But then he would madly veer off into cloud kookoo land and question the link between HIV and AIDS (”A virus cannot cause a syndrome”, “HIV is a CIA plot”) to try and justify the decisions of the government not to provide HIV positive mothers with the medicine required to save their babies from HIV (in other words, a decision to let those babies die).
Now our former President is back to his old ways. In an interview with the Sunday Independent he rails against the Nicholson judgment and points out (correctly in my view) that Nicholson did not base his judgment on proven facts according to appropriate the rules of evidence:
Mbeki explained his understanding of the meaning of Nicholson’s judgment. He felt that Nicholson “really sought to impugn our integrity”, and presented Mbeki and his cabinet as “dishonest people” who “for whatever reason want to intervene in ways that are illegal and unconstitutional”.
He said he, like his cabinet colleagues, took the oath of office seriously and the oath was, for him, not just a formality. “For somebody to pop up from somewhere with absolutely no basis … to come to a conclusion that these are bad people, dishonest people, acted in violation of their oath, this and that and the other; that was bad,” he said.
Well, although Nicholson clearly got it wrong by basing his decision on very flimsy evidence, this does not demonstrate that Mbeki and members of his cabinet did not act dishonestly. We all know that Mbeki and his Minister of Justice had a rather peculiar idea about the independence of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and that they tried to interfere with his work in order to stop the arrest of Jackie Selebi, that an unlawful order was given by his Minister to Vusi Pikoli not to arrest Selebi, that Pikoli was suspended because he refused to be intimidated by the President.
We all know that the Minister in the Presidency (old Essops Fables) shamelessly intimidated members of Parliament to try and stop them from launching a proper investigation into the arms deal because we have read Andrew Feinstein’s first hand account of this intimidation. (If there was nothing to hide, why go to such extraordinary lengths to hide that nothing?) We all know that former President Mandela was humiliated and ridiculed by Mbeki cabinet members because he dared to speak up about Mbeki’s HIV and AIDS folly. We all know that there was arms deal corruption (some of it even leading to prosecution). We all know that Shaik and Zuma were investigated while others in the ANC and in government, who were not threatening Mbeki’s political position (like Zuma was), and who clearly had much to explain, were left alone.
Some will say: well we do not know this at all because it was never proven in a court of law. Bring the evidence! Until you have satisfied US that we are indeed crooks, we are not crooks! Prove it! Well, a court has never found that the apartheid state supported hit squads and at the time the government denied involvement in such hits squads and also demanded from those who pointed to all the available evidence to “bring the evidence” while at the same time doing everything in its power to discredit those with inside information and personal experience of such nefarious activities. Sometimes the truth does not wait for a court of law.
Often a body of evidence – both circumstantial evidence and hard evidence – emerges over time. Even where someone is not prosecuted, any reasonably well-informed person will be justified to make conclusions based on that evidence. For example, no one was ever prosecuted in the United States for fabricating evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and for deceiving the public about the reasons for going into Iraq. But there is such a wealth of evidence supporting the fact of fabrication that only a few die-hard George Bush supporters will now claim that Bush and his cronies were not thoroughly rotten and dishonest about the reasons for going to war with Iraq (and much else besides).
The same is the case surrounding the arms deal, corruption and political interference in decisions to investigate and prosecute (or NOT to investigate and prosecute) some well-connected ANC types for arms deal and other forms of corruption. It might not form part of the “objective reality” in which President Thabo Mbeki lives, but it does not mean that it is not so.
“Just because I am paranoid doesn’t mean that nobody is out to get me.”
I have major issues with the way our supposedly ‘emlighened” and “new” government functions and gets its way, but Mr Mbeki had a few major disconnects with truth in his time.
Like in 2000, when he spoke to Tim Sebastian from the BBC and used 1995 death stats to talk about the “lack” of AIDS deaths. The total deaths in SA were something like this:
1993: 200,000
1994: 230,000
1995: 270,000
1996: 330,000
1997: 390,000
1998: 460,000
1999: 530,000
“Natural” growth in these figures would have led at most to a death rate of about 320,000 in 1999 (or maybe even 400,000 if one adjusted for better reporting and re-integration of the homelands).
In six years an extra 200,000 or so deaths arose with no other cause or explanation. But Mr Mbeki, with a masters dehree in Economics from Sussex University could “overlook” this data and the trend it showed, and rely on 1995 figures.
With all of his intellect and erudition, truth was a commodity to be used in the pursuit or the defence of power. Some intellectual! Remember that other great african intellectual, Mr Jonathan Moyo (Mr Mugabe’s erstwhile “brain-for-hire”).
‘
Over to Khosi….
Another good posting Prof and I am looking foward to Mayimele’s response to this posting.
A few days ago we battled on this blog to mention names of people who can be accepted as outstanding leaders and I guess we might have the same problem in identifying intelligent leaders or great african intellectual.
Oh how we miss the Mbeki era! This current lot is quite boring in comparison. I miss the ANCToday’s letter from the president…
I think Pierre raises issues that have been debated, at times, to saturation on this very blog. But I also think that Pierre has jumped the gun since a side note on that article clearly stated that the full interview will be covered next week. So my initial response, Peter, is that I will wait until next Sunday when the full text of the interview is published and then construct my viewpoint.
Talking to people and looking at other blogs, that interview is going to be the most anticipated news event of the week. Why not, we love to hear what he has to say. He gets us talking and, more importantly, thinking about what future we want this country to be.
khosi says:
October 26, 2009 at 11:58 am
“He gets us talking and, more importantly, thinking about what future we want this country to be”.
The future of this country it seems is that which Julius Malema says it will be.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-09-inside-the-malema-machine
and
http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article166431.ece
@ Khosi
Bro, I think you have misread the para about the full interview next week. I have quoted it and posted the link below so that you may read it again. Take your time…
“Next week, we publish the full interview with Mbeki on COPE, the campaign ahead of Polokwane, challenges of our time, and his retirement, among other things.”
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091025073810563C986407
@Sne,
I hate it when Africans live their lives entrenching prejudices that are long held about them. I am really doubting whether ‘Sne’ is not just a psuedoname for some racist individual of colonial ancestry.
What is different to what I said when compared to what the paper said???
khosi says:
October 26, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I do not want to pre-empt the Court decision in the application by Vusi Pikoli by discussing former President Mbeki’s lies or “truths” as that may also constitute an offence under our laws.
I was shell-shocked when I read the Nicholson J’s judgment which was way out of line in the context of what was before him and further when I read the SCA judgment overturning the first one. Whether it is subsequently proved to be true is another story which does not negate what I have said in the first line of this para.
Khosi, you need to admit to yourself that former President Mbeki may be a leader or may represent exactly what you feel like inside but you also need to concede that he is (was?) a politician and was therefore likely to be like all other politicians in substance or at least in his approach. Doing that will surely open your eyes to his many shortcomings and will make you a better person and one who not merely views objective opinions on any (black) African leader as inherently racist or Afro-pessimistic or counter-revolutionary. In many a times I criticise in order to ameliorate.
I do not criticise (black) African leaders just because I feel we cannot produce good leaders. I criticise because I want us not to have merely “good” leaders but to have “better” if not “best” leaders. I believe as a leader you do not become better merely by concealing your shortcomings but by making mistakes and learning from them. Concealing your mistakes makes you “another” politician. By not learning from his mistakes and instead trying to conceal them, diverting attention from same or counter-accusing his accusers made former President Mbeki just another politician. I used to hold him in very high regard just like you until I realised unwillingness to admit mistakes which consequently resulted in him not learning from same. This, in my mind, means that he was elevating himself to a demi-god who was incapable of making mistakes; that I cannot accept!
I will not tackle your accusation that I entrench prejudices or that I am of colonial ancestry as both are not connected to my post (Sne October 26, 2009 at 12:20 pm) to which you were replying. It happens sometimes that we make mistakes when reading especially when we are in a hurry or when we desperately want to veer away from or towards a certain interpretation. However, it is up to us how we react when such mistakes are brought to light. I might add that you reaction to my post is strikingly similar to that of former President Mbeki.
Lastly, we both know that what you said is completely different from what is written in the relevant article… I expected you to merely say thanks and apologise to the rest of the bloggers for your post which was a glaring error…
“He gets us talking and, more importantly, thinking about what future we want this country to be”.
Probably in our sleep.
Judges also read newspapers and get influenced. It’s probably because of those type of things that Mike Atkins mentions – and all the denials of things ordinary people experienced, that Nicholson went out of his way – in the way Mbeki laments about.
Ordinary people aren’t stupid.
Gwebecimele says:
October 26, 2009 at 13:43 pm
lol!
@ Khosi
As an aside, I consider it just at this stage to give you a little history lesson and try to “shock a brother into his senses”.
It is amazing how we black South Africans, yes ‘WE’, tend to regard ourselves as more South Africans and our white compatriots as less and sometimes even non-South Africans notably by reference to, inter alia, 1652 (arrival of Jan van Riebeeck in the Cape to build a refreshment station for his Company), 1699(?) (arrival of the French Huguenots in the Cape who thereafter immensely contributed to establishing the wines farms in the Cape and 1820 (arrival of British Settlers in the Cape).
The above line of reasoning is dangerous even for us black South Africans. As umXhosa I will make reference to the Nguni Group (comprising amaXhosa, amaZulu, amaSwati and amaNdebele). According to the ‘recorded’ African history (by that I do not mean African history as told by natural Africans but I mean the ‘history of white people in Africa’ since whites ‘reasonably recorded’ their history due to their ability not only to draw but to also write), the black people in South Africa are originally from the Great Lakes of Africa (remember that area next to the Equator?). However, they moved from there towards the southern most part of Africa (present-day South Africa) due to a number of reasons. Chief among these were; (1) they wanted better grazing land for their cattle – overgrazing, (2) their plowing fields were exhausted – failure to rotate crops or monoculture (remember Ngunis were farmers), (3) wars among the different race groups and (4) Arab slave traders.
The original inhabitants of our beautiful country are actually the Khoi-Khoi people (to some extent the descendants of the present-day coloured people) whose language we do not even have as one of the official languages in this country. I will not mention the San (Bushmen) people despite the fact that they also arrived here before us for the simple reason that they were continuously on the move chasing after the always migrating animals as they were hunters and not farmers.
Even if we were to argue in spite of the above, we would have to exclude large parts of South Africa as belonging to white South Africans. AmaXhosa met the British only at the Fish River (if I am not mistaken) and fought in the nine frontiers wars mainly for the area between the Kei and Fish Rivers which was very fertile for grazing cattle, and therefore all the area across the Fish River would belong to white people who occupied it first in accordance with international laws existing at the time.
Therefore Khosi, I do not see any wisdom in the line of argument that you normally adopt with numerous others…
PS: Once again, this was an aside and I did not intend it to be discussed.
Sne says:
October 26, 2009 at 14:50 pm
“PS: Once again, this was an aside and I did not intend it to be discussed.”
“It is amazing how we black South Africans, yes ‘WE’, tend to regard ourselves as more South Africans and our white compatriots as less …”
This notion wasn’t created by black South Africans but perpetuated by the numerous colonial groups who maintained their link to the old country, clinging to their ancestry until it became convenient to start being “WHITE AFRICANS” … I wonder who named us “NATIVES”?
ius cogens?
The Professor seems to make out that one can at once (a) draw attention to a master narrative and the extent to which it can influence opinions and (b), seek to defend objectionable behaviour by claiming that valid criticisms thereof are unconvincing because they are inspired by the master narrative. If I have read the Professor’s piece correctly, then I agree. That is, the criticism which people after the fashion of Mbeki level against their detractors is valid but sometimes misused.
Actually we have seen this sort of reasoning misused fairly regularly on this blog. The problem with the way in which this master narrative argument is employed is that people such as Mbeki (and indeed some of our fellow bloggers) use it as a sort of catch-all rejection of reproach which effectively renders their views, conduct and even heroes invulnerable to reasoned criticism.
The solution is of course exceedingly simple: try to be aware of the master narrative. But do not be too quick to dismiss views which run contrary to yours. That way, mindfulness of whatever relevant master narrative can achieve a desirable result: casting a learned light on unfair criticism that is properly ascribed to prejudice. But super-sensitive people would not be allowed to invoke these narratives to obscure (a) their sensitivity or (b) their culpability.
“Some will say: well we do not know this at all because it was never proven in a court of law. Bring the evidence!”
Like those who eloquently that the Reitz four were not racist?
@ Maggs
Before I engage Maggs in conversation, I will apologise to our fellow bloggers for departing from the current subject matter.
Maggs, with respect, you really did not understand what Michael and I were saying. Neither of us made out that the Reitz four were definately not racist. But if it will make you happier, I will say that those boys could well have been animated by racism.
Many bloggers that participated in that discussion made out that the conduct could only have been inspired by racism. That is, the victims were black and thus racism is the only possible explanation. Some even said that there was no evidence to the effect that those four thugs actually harmed white people in similar ways and thus there was further indication to the effect that they were motivated by racism. It is this firm reliance upon untested assumption that both Michael and I challenged. And I still think that it is as ill-asvised approach to investigating anything.
With all respect, the views which fit the foregoing bill truly miss what we were saying. Our basic point was this: those four boys may have been bullies who would have abused any vulnerable person. Thus the core feature that they would have looked for in potential victims may not have been black skin. It may have been vulnerability. Most of our fellow bloggers will not even dare to consider whether those four would have harmed a very vulnerable white person. But upon even shallow inspection, it is, I think, not difficult to picture those same thugs shaming a younger, reclusive and frail white student.
@Gwebecimele,
Seeing as if some of us, who are awake, are talking about Mbeki; You seem to have invented a way of blogging in your sleep. Please share on how sleep-blogging can be achieved.
Leigh says:
October 26, 2009 at 16:14 pm
LOL!
That sounds much like Mbekispeak.
Let me hasten to add that if Zuma were to be attacked, I would rush off and ask for “objective proof” in the skin of a court judgment of guilty.
In the same vein I have said that Huntley is crazy to suggest that there is a racist motive behind the attacks he claimed, but if it were a Black person who was the victim of attacks by Whites I would have cried racism.
But that is a detraction.
Back to Mbekispeak.
et al,
Anyone who wishes to pick up a discussion with me should please refer to what I said @11:58 am or, at least raise, something sensible to discuss.
@ Leigh …
LOL! Still pushing that theory …
The Premise of the video was based on “INTERGRATION” thus the issue of black and white students having to engage on a cultural level in the residence would be, according to them, very problematic!
Its a pity we don’t have some SLIPKNOT OBSESSION or ANIMAL CRUELTY media reports linked to the boys to back your view
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it ….
I’m just glad our Ex-President has popped up! Usually the bad ones go to some coastal town and become hermits …
khosi says:
October 26, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“… of colonial descent…”.
Actually, we are pretty much all of colonial descent. It’s just that some colonisers came from Africa, and others came from Europe. Whar’s the difference?
Oh, and I am not a coloniser, I emigrated here as a 10-week old baby in 1965. But I did come fromt hat “colonialist” country, England. Am I to be judged by the clountry that I was born in? Isn’t that a little bit like, you know, what was it again, … apartheid?
Prof, it may well be ok for us ordinary folk to just “know” things by some sort of fiat, but isn’t the point that courts are not entitled to do so?
If the complaint is that the conclusion was not justified by the evidence before the court – as confirmed by the SCA – then your post becomes very odd.
The suggestion that although Nicholson J clearly got it wrong, “this does not demonstrate that Mbeki and members of his cabinet did not act dishonestly” is equally surprising. Even if you happen to “know” all these things which you say you do, courts are obliged to base their decisions on the evidence before them. How have you managed to lose sight of that one?
@ Maggs
“In the same vein I have said that Huntley is crazy to suggest that there is a racist motive behind the attacks he claimed, but if it were a Black person who was the victim of attacks by Whites I would have cried racism.”
Maggs, I want to congratulate you on your candor, something that was absent in some of your allies in our long running debate.
(Wish I had thought of the Huntley counter-example. Brilliant)
Good post by Pierre. And don’t forget the speech Mbeki gave at Fort Hare – another low point, in which he also tried to give some Foucauldian spin to HIV/AIDS
And. of course, the making of Zuma. Zuma would not have been President of SA if it wasn’t for Mbeki! Now that’s objective reality! Remember how Mbeki after claiming the discovery of a ‘plot’ – in which ANC crown princes such CR, TS, and MP were falsely named – Zuma was coerced into making a statement that he did not desire the South African Crown ever. I remember thinking then, such statement would be superfluous, of course, Zuma would not have the ambition to even contemplate running for the presidency. See how it all turned out…unpredictable. Thanks to Mbeki
Sne (re: October 26, 2009 at 14:50 pm),
You are either woefully miseducated and brainwashed or Khosi is right about you not being umXhosa you claim to be. By your own admission, you rely on the history written by the colonizers and oppressors to make your case.
I have news for you – most of that history is bunk. A case in point:
One standard 8 history book had a picture of a parchment that was supposedly signed by uDingane promising some Boers land – which promise he allegedly reneged on before he ruthlessly killed those innocent boers on December 16.
That story is wrong on many fronts.
First, Dingane could not read or write – that signature was therefore a forgery. Even if it he did sign something, he would have spelt his name – Dingane and not Dingaan.
Second, those Boers were not innocent at all. Dingane had offered them asylum, but instead they were spotted by abogqyinyanga (night watchmen) snooping around at night. Dingane was duly informed and he concluded that they were witches, because it was only witches who would be walking around at night doing some snooping and other evil deeds. That he why he ordered the ‘witches’ killed.
Any wonder how the term ‘umlungu’ was coined?
In Zulu, “lungu” comes from “lunguza”, which means peep or snoop. When I say, “ngithi lungu” in English it means “I peep” or “I snoop”. “Umlungu” therefore would mean a snooper. The name was coined after that fateful day, subsequently called “Dingaan’s day” or “the day of the vow”.
Another example of false or pseudo history is the story of Nongqawuse. It was so written to make our people look bad – superstitious and stupid.
Your comments, Sne, indicate the need for our people to rewrite history and set the record straight.
Don’t rely on the oppressor’s word; do some research and speak to experts and elders.
@Dumisani Mkhize
“Another example of false or pseudo history is the story of Nongqawuse. It was so written to make our people look bad – superstitious and stupid.”
Dumisani, your interesting post got me thinking. The history of Europe is full of accounts of white people burning witches, seeing ghosts, worshipping statues, persecuting astronomers, believing idiotic stories about Jews, consulting homeopaths, slaughtering each other over obscure theological disputes, etc.
Do you thing someone make these stories up to make white people look superstitious and stupid?
Or were they really superstitious and stupid?
thing = think
Michael Osborne asks: “Do you think someone make these stories up to make white people look superstitious and stupid?”
Not necessarily.
The story of Nongqawuse should be seen in its proper context. It was part of a larger agenda to subjugate the indigenous Xhosa people. An attempt was made to convert them to Christianity by putting down their religious beliefs of the time.
We know that Christianity puts Jesus as the son of God, and by painting Jesus white it necessarily follows that his father was White – so God is white and white is good.
Everything outside Christianity was painted as evil. This plan succeeded to a great extent with the result that Black people developed a negative attitude about everything African which resulted in self-hate.
By using Nongqawuse the way they did, not only did they succeed in converting many Xhosas to Christianity, but they also managed to brainwash them to submission.
The truth about the Nongqawuse story is that a fraud was perpetrated and the trusting Xhosa people were deceived. That deception resulted to genocide.
@ Dunmisa
OK, Dumisani, I take your point.
But you have not answered my point.
By many modern “scientific” standard, white people in Europe were tremendously superstitious/stupid. No one had not “make up” stories about white people to demonstrate their primitive superstitiousness.
By the same token, I would suspect that 19th Century black people in Africa were no less superstitious — if one applies modern scientific standards.
@ Leigh,
I tried not to continue the debate, but I have to come back to your blogs.
I – and Mzo, Maggs, Ferwood and others – did NOT say that every time when whites perpetrate a crime and blacks are victims, racism is the only explanation of the crime. We didn’t turn the argument upside down. We did not argue in abstracto, but about a specific case – the Reitz four at the UFS. Of course, there were untested assumptions, and, of course, the person asserting racism has to prove it, but the difference between us and you (and Michael and others) was that we read racism into a very transparent scenario: RACISM with capital letters. It is like seeing someone forcing a person under water or someone holding a gun and then say to the onlooker – don’t make any assumptions! We were onlookers to a video and saw the RACISM WITH OUR OWN EYES, we didn’t jump blindly to conclusions.
Nor is it about not wanting to take politically incorrect positions. If the Reitz four had acted in similar vein to any other worker or any oom and tannie in Bloemfontein, we would have heard about it immediately, that these were ‘wanton boys who kill flies for their sports’. It is not that we did not consider other possibilities, but we were not pursuaded by it, in our opinion, there was a prima facie case of racial humiliation.
The white farm-murders ‘analogy’ presented by Agri SA and used by Michael to support his argument does not hold. While any claim of racism needs to be taken seriously, there is no evidence to suggest farm-murders are racially motivated – black farm workers and domestic workers too became victims of the crimes committed on farms. It’s not an instance of neutral principles -without context and history – to be applied across the board: you can’t exclude the unequal power relations in racism claims. Just the mere fact that white youth (’kleinbaassies’) can do such a thing to adult women – seems to suggest blatant racism (intersecting with, yes, Michael, class, and sexism) in this case.
It is not that we didn’t understand, but that we don’t agree! The two ad hoc groupings on the blog seemed to operate on different wavelengths of empathy and understanding, that’s all.
Finally, the test of excluding absolutely all other possibilities is setting the standard very high. It wasn’t applied, for example, by Judge Squires in Shaiks’ case, when the judge drew a conclusion from a pattern. It doesn’t exclude the possiblity that somewhere there is a judge who would have come to the conclusion that paying a friend R10.- for a carwash was inspired by long-standing friendship! Did you and Michael at the time provide a similar argument on behalf of Shaik – that there was a possibility ….?
Yes, Michael you are right.
Superstition knows no colour.
@ Charlotte A
I find it astonishing that we continue to differ on a matter like this.
It is matter of threshold, and the willingness to accommodate presumptions that may well be sociologically and historically defensible.
You may in your own terms be correct to discern racial animus, even without any actual demonstration of the subjective state of the Reitz perpetrators, or of their personal histories, etc Given the relevant history, and the fact that the boys are Afrikaaners (rather than Swedish exchange students), such a presumption may indeed seem hardly unreasonable.
But if you are prepared to indulge such a presumption in the case of Reitz, why for heavens’s sake would you not wish to go along with the suggestion that some farm murders are also animated, at least in part, by racial animus? Once again. the particular history — and the continuing abuse by white farmers of black workers — hardly makes such motives far-fetched.
(BTW, have you read Johnny Steinberg’s ‘Midlands’? Difficult to call him a mouthpiece for Agri SA.)
P.S. Charlotte, would you go along with Maggs’ frank admission that she would resist to the death the veracity of Huntley’s account, yet have little trouble accepting racial animus if Huntley were black?
@Michael Osborne
You seem to be a level-headed, unemotional debater and that on its own is a very strong quality. However, I have to call your comparison of the exploitation of a people’s superstitiousness between Europe and what happened in Africa to order. In Europe, when the folks up there were still in the dark there was no detractors or colonizers waiting on their coastline ready to pounce on them at first oppotunity. Yes, the was tribal conflicts in Europe but nothing to the magnitude of colonization of Africa from Dakar via Cape to Djibouti.
The use of the Nongqawuse story was a political ploy for lack of better word. The colonizers had identified a wickness, in the form of being overly ignorant and superstitious, among the African natives. It was obvious that this new land they these Africans had looked very promising at the time, especially compariing it to the colonizers motherland Europe, and everything had to be done to usurp it.
One other fact to keep in mind is that most of the settlers who came down to southern Africa were hard criminals and convicts from Europe, just like those kuku’s in Australia, who chose the option to go into exile rather face the chopping block, thus for them, surviving in the new found land was a must. They had to survive by any means necessary! And this is a fact!
The point I am trying make here is that at the time of Nongqawuse all bets were off and anything would give as long as it yielded the desired results. Afrikan people were subjected to unspeakable brutality and those who resisted somewhat like the Xhosa and the Zulus, were attacked with a strategy of lies, eg Nongqawuse! Lets also not forget that this pattern of behaviour towards Afrikans continued for over 300 years in southern African and susequently only in South Africa. The rest is our modern history.
Mpho Mogadingoane:
Sadly, there were colonizers of Europe at that time that you are talking about–vicious settlers, actually, who conquered most of the known world–the Romans. They thought nothing of killing off masses of the population, torturing as well. They also used biological warfare. Indeed, they bragged about the viciousness of their tactics (Read The War Commentaries of Caesar if you are interested). Western Europe (particularly present day Germany) suffered horribly from these foreign invaders, far more than Africa ever did, and for a longer time.
PM
Let me ask and idiotic question, did the Romans create a European Nongqawuse when they colonized Europe? Are you aware that the merits of this so called colonization, if we can call it that, are totally different from those of what was happening in Africa? Like Michael Osborne said, think = think!
@ Mpho
Not just the Romans. Much more recently, half of Europe was colonised by Austria, and parts of it by Russia, Spain and the Ottoman Empire. Not to mention the 50 year colonisation of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union, that ended only in 1989.
And yes, Mpho, like all colonisers, these people made up stories to legitimate their conquests, having to do with their subjects being sub-human, or being filthy, or worshipping the wrong Gods/s.
Also, is Sne just making up the story that parts of Southern Africa was colonised by dark-skinned invaders? Do you really think that indigenous people were scrupulously respectful of their neighbours’ territory?
Is it a myth that much of notth Africa was until recently colonised by other north Africans?
You say Nongqawuse was a myth.. You may be right. But the simple dichotomy of Europeans as colonisers and Africans as eternal victims also reflects a deep-seated myth.
@ PM
What did the Romans ever do for us?
Michael Osborne says:
October 27, 2009 at 0:48 am
“I find it astonishing that we continue to differ on a matter like this”.
Why would that be?
My experience is that I differ strongly with close friends on Zuma vs Mbeki for example.
Those of us who are pro Zuma differ equally strongly on say the JSC/Hlophe (and other matters too) saga.
On the Reitz four you say that the burden of proof is on those who allege racism. Maybe.
There should also be a burden of proof on those who allege non-racism.
This is not a court of law, so the test should be based on the probabilities or those who can scream the loudest (that’s us winning on the latter
).
On the Zuma vs Mbeki score the test is much simpler – who is liked more (another one for the good guys).
On, as Leigh calls it, the master narrative it seems that no one really cares to comment on that “objective reality”.
I think that Mbeki’s unpopularity (and nasty Emperor image) is a consequence of not so much what he said, but how he said it.
Malema on the other hand finds popularity not on how he says things (which is often seriously wanting) but what he says.
p.s if all this seems contradictory blame Mayimele who encouraged me to see the consider the flip side.
p.p.s. Do I write like a girl?
“One other fact to keep in mind is that most of the settlers who came down to southern Africa were hard criminals and convicts from Europe, just like those kuku’s in Australia…”
@Mpho:
Where did you get this from? The historical records don’t support this claim of yours? Yet you say “most”.
It would be the same if I assert that that the natives found at the southernmost parts of Africa are the worst types because of the process of “difaqane” { and other such crap that was once taught at some schools}!
@Mpho Mogadingoane
Why are you calling other children – descendants of delinquent, hooligan and transgressing blackguards? Did you not get the memo, it is black Africans who are supposed to shoulder that description.
Play nicely… Mpho!
@ et al
Gee guys, I thought that part of my post was an aside. I did not intend it to be a full on discussion…
@ Dumisani Mkhize
1. I will not entertain your insult in the first para.
2. Most of that history may be bunk but your example does not negate what I said nor succeed to even make a dent thereto.
3. About the need for black people to rewrite history, I am with you on that one but that history has not come to my attention so I cannot rely on it but I will continue to rely on what is in front of me; much like a judge who must focus on what evidence is adduced in court. I may have suspicions that history as we know it was doctored to fit a certain context and favour certain races but there is nothing at hand to dispute this ‘doctored’ history. Please refute what I have said above.
4. Lastly, I qualified my statement knowing very well that we have different understandings of our history as Africans. You say that I should speak to experts and elders. With respect I think that is the job of anyone who disputes what I am saying, like you.
@ Prof.
My apologies Prof. I did not mean to highjack your blog like this by diverting from the topic at hand.
I would like to support Henri’s refutation of Mpho’s statement that MOST of the settlers who came Southern Africa were hard criminals and convicts, and also like to see his supporting references for this statement. My ancestors were from Germany and France, and fled from religious persecution by Catholics of Protestants in those countries-hardly a criminal act, I would think. I do not doubt that there were amongst the settlers, some who fled from the law, but hardly MOST of them.
Henri says:
October 27, 2009 at 8:09 am
“One other fact to keep in mind is that most of the settlers who came down to southern Africa were hard criminals and convicts from Europe,”
Indeed not – they became so when they got here.
Charlotte A says:
October 27, 2009 at 0:00 am
Well said.
@Michael
“why for heavens’s sake would you not wish to go along with the suggestion that some farm murders are also animated, at least in part, by racial animus?”
I for one would have no issues with indulging you in this regard. However, it goes back to the point that Charlotte so eloquently spelt out, and as judges normally say, EACH CASE TO BE LOOKED ON ITS MERITS.
In casu, based on the info at hand, we are of the view that it was racism. You and Leigh seem to hold a view that it could have been something else but I still have to see any basis, on the available facts, for this view you hold.
@Maggs at 8h51.
Kindly provide reliable references to support your statement.
@ Mzo and Charlotte
What do you two understand by initiations?
Gwebecimele says:
October 26, 2009 at 11:32 am
“I guess we might have the same problem in identifying intelligent leaders or great african intellectual.”
I heard that Nigeria in addition to having more human capacity than any other country on the continent, has more graduates per capita and more intellectuals than other continental states.
And it has massive oil revenues and other resources.
All that does help most people of Nigeria, rather it seems to keep them captive in the poverty trap.
It seems that people have given up/abandoned/abdicated their personal power in the quest for the great messiahs, in the guise of the great intellectuals, and that in my view is among the causes of where we find ourselves in this continent.
Unless the conversations shift in a way that encourages ordinary people into taking back their own power (and taking responsibility for the consequences either way) not much is going to change.
Justice says:
October 27, 2009 at 8:58 am
“Kindly provide reliable references to support your statement”.
In a word – apartheid. They supported, defended, participated, encouraged etc.
But that was in reference to people of a long time ago.
I hasten to add that no one is alive today who supported, aided, abetted that awful regime.
Nor were they directly or indirectly recipients of the spoils of that crime against humanity – so all is well in our Rainbow Nation.
It is such a pity that some are using the blog to slur racial insults at others, then accusing the receivers of the insults of racism. My post is actually in response to the prof’s blog, and not to insult anyone.
I was a Mbeki fan, but then he became president, and I was really disappointed in his performance. That does not take away the fact that I have lots of sympathy for him when it comes to the Nicholson judgement. I listened to judge Nicholson delivering the judgement, and I couldn’t believe what he was doing. I knew that the appeal process would just be a formality, but that the harm done would be irreparable.
For those interested in the legal side, have a look at this judgement by Moeng J:
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZANWHC/2000/4.pdf
Sivakashi, my point here is a familiar one. While the state may need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is a criminal before that person could be locked up and while the court has to presume that a person is innocent until proven guilty, we do not live in a court of law (because we do not have the legal power to lock people up for 15 or 25 years). In our political and everyday life we make value judgments and decisions about what is true and what not with the available evidence and act accordingly. We look at the Reitz video, at what those guys did, at their anti-integration rhetoric (which formed part of the video) and we decide that they are racist. We do not say, well they are innocent until proven guilty so we will not have any opinion about the Reitz 4. In the same manner we look at all the available evidence regarding what a politician like Mbeki did and we form an opinion about what he or she did or did not do: it is both inevitable and necessary for us to make ANY political decisions. We look at the DA (well, some of us) and hear some of their statements and see how white the leadership still is and we make a call and decide the DA is anti-transformation; we look at Mbeki, at the way he denied so many things that later turned out to be true, at the way in which the arms deal investigation was thwarted, at the way in which Andrew Feinstein was hounded out of the ANC because he wanted to investigate the arms deal, at the draft report on the arms deal which fingered many more people than Zuma and Shaik and was then misteriously changed dramatically after having been shown to Mbeki, at the tapes of Ngcuka and McCarthy where they refer to “the Chief” and the timing of the Zuma prosecution, and we make a judgment call on Mbeki and his role in the prosecution or failure to prosecute of politicians. If we did not do that we would never have any negative opinion about ANY politician because most politicians never get convicted in a court of law. But those politicians and their defenders who do not like the call and do not wish to face the mounting evidence about that politician’s prejudices, stupidities, dishonesties and the like, then quickly pretend we all live inside a court room and lambast us for making a judgment about that politician because “everyone must be presumed innocent until proven guilty” (leaving out the bit that this is only required in a court of law).
The important thing to remember is that we should always have an open mind and always be prepared to change our mind about someone if we receive more facts. We should be prepared to consider the possibility that Helen Zille is not a racist, that Jacob Zuma is not a disaster as our president, that Thabo Mbeki is maybe a deeply honest man who has no Machiavallian tendencies. But we can surely not be expected not to have any opinion about any of these politicians merely because they have never been convicted of any crime?
@ Mzo
“iit goes back to the point that Charlotte so eloquently spelt out, and as judges normally say, EACH CASE TO BE LOOKED ON ITS MERITS.”
Mzo, I do not believe many of the people have considered the Reitz case on its merits. For most, I dare say, ANY human interaction will be presumed to animated by racism if three requirements are satisfied:
(a) Perpetrators were white Afrikaaners.
(b) Victim suffered injury.
(c) Victim was black.
Turning to the the farm murders, for many (Agri SA), the particular context etc. of any given farm murder is besides the point. There is a presumption that farm murderers in general are inspired by racism. I think this presumption should be interrogated, just as the Reitz presumption should be questioned.
Consider Huntley. I (and am sure you too, and, I see, Maggs too), am profoundly sceptical of his claim that various alleged attacks upon him by black people were racially motivated. Please note that this scepticism comes into play BEFORE we have investigated the “merits” of each particular attack on Huntley.
I approach this debate against the backgound of the corruption of the discourse of racism, as a consequence of profligate overuse. (This is another of the things for which we have Mr Mbeki to thank.) The anti-racist cause is not strengthened, but undermined by the idiotic assertion that attacks on corruption and the testing of Caster Semenya are “racist.” Same goes for a too easy presumption of racist animus in the Reitz and farm murder cases.
@ Michael
Your last post is very well put. And I agree with you that few poeple have considered the Reitz incident on its merits – even some of those people who claim to have done so.
I am going to mention three points here. First, I think that the question here is not so much whether those specific boys did this to anyone else. Rather, if we want to determine whether they acted with racist intent (however irrelevant that question may be on the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence), the question is more: had the ladds encountered a sufficiently vulnerable white person such as an effeminate, physically weak, reclusive white student, might they have done something of the same?
Secondly, we already know that the university had a culture of initiations. And I understand initiations roughly to be customary occassions on which more senior students shame or embarrass vulnearble people who are not infrequently weaker, younger or otherwise vulnerable students. If that is true, then it is at least possible that past victims of initiations were white people. Moreover, it is possible also that those incidents did not gain notoriety because (a) the victims happened to white people and were thus expected to countenance being shamed on such occassions and (b), the incidents were not taped.
Thirdly, you are right, I think, in that incidents that involve Afrikaner perpetrators and black victims are presumed to be racist. But in this instance, the people who are so convinced that the thugs were motivated by racism have not bothered to consider (i) the nature of cultures of initiation which we have heard repeatedly was a factor at the university in question and (ii), whether white people have been victimised in the context of that culture.
@Sivakashi,
I have not seen you on this blog before so let me give you a heads up. Pierre has about the same amount of love for former president Mbeki as Blade Nzimande. So expect no objectivity to anything that Pierre says about the former president.
Let me give you a warm example, in his reply to your question Pierre says :-
“at the tapes of Ngcuka and McCarthy where they refer to “the Chief” and the timing of the Zuma prosecution, and we make a judgment call on Mbeki and his role in the prosecution or failure to prosecute of politicians.”
To a commoner, those tapes and the alleged content remain hearsay. In fact even to Mpshe, the very man who told us of the content of the tapes. Now if you ask Pierre to provide you with evidence where the hearsay content alluded to Ngcuka and McCarthy referring to “the Chief”, he will fail. Mpshe did not refer to “the Chief” but the “big man at Luthuli house”. Pierre is roguishly saying “the Chief” because that is the name given, in affection, to Mbeki by the people he works with.
On Pierre’s “judgment call on Mbeki and his role in the prosecution or failure to prosecute of politicians”.
You see, Moeti, Pierre will believe Pikoli without question when he says that Mbeki suspended him because he was about to arrest Selebi. But Pierre will then ignore Pikoli when he says that Mbeki never interfered in decisions on whether to prosecute or not, on any matter – including Selebi matter and the painful matter of the trial of the former deputy president.
So Pierre makes and substantiates these ‘judgement calls’ based on his own prejudices and mostly hearsay. At some point one of the bloggers lamented that the future law marshals of our country are left to the careless and incompetent teachings of his ilk.
khosi says:
October 27, 2009 at 10:43 am
“But Pierre will then ignore Pikoli when he says that Mbeki never interfered in decisions on whether to prosecute or not, on any matter – including Selebi matter and the painful matter of the trial of the former deputy president”.
Mbeki did not have to.
He fired Zuma even after Zuma took out a whole, full page ad in the Sunday Times that he was not interested in becoming President (ok, maybe he lied about that, but he placed the ad anyway).
And Zuma was to be tried in the court of public opinion, so no need to direct Pikoli.
p.s. Pierre does not like Zuma either, or Zille, or Malema or. Darn he does not like a whole host of people.
@ Pierre – who do you like????
@Michael
In principle I have no difficulty with the issues you raise but to me you appear to be talking “generally” and not with specific reference to the case at hand, which is the problem I have with your argument in this particular case. You still have not told me what facts there are that would suggest that these boys were motivated by something else other than racism.
@Leigh
Are you suggesting that the initiations at UFS went beyond students – even old black women had to undergo initiation? I always assumed that it was predominantly the “freshers” that would be subjected to these initiation rituals. Certainly the initiation practices I’ve experienced were limited to “freshers” (students) and not to the ladies who were cleaning our residences!!
So Leigh, contrary to your view, I have infact “bothered” to look at the issues you raised but I still remain convinced that those yound men were motivated by nothing else other than racism. So far, hard as you and Michael have tried, I remain unconvinced that there was any other explanation – the culture of initiation certainly does not even begin to give an alternative explanation.
@ Mzo
“You still have not told me what facts there are that would suggest that these boys were motivated by something else other than racism.”
Mzo, this is the nub of the matter. Generally, he who asserts must prove — even outside a court of law, and especially where the charge is very serious.
So it is not for me and Leigh to prove the negative — that they were NOT motivated by racism. It is for you to show that they WERE motivated by racism.
If indeed, as Pierre now suggests, they said something about opposing campus integration, that obviously would be strong evidence.
By exactly the same token; I resist the notion that farm killings in general manifest racism. But if the killers have written “we have killed the Boere” on the farmhouse door, I may well change my mind.
@Leigh,
Initiations of older women, who have been working for almost twenty years as cleaners at an institution?! C’mon – initiation is about initiating first year students into school, university (and probably initiating young recruits into the defence force).
Again, I entirely agree with Mzo and Pierre.
To Khosi
Perhaps you are/were member of the native club and had a previledge to speak and think about the world Mbeki explained to you. Some of us were not that fortunate and that is why I suppose it happened while we were sleeping. May be he makes us think, ‘Which planet is he from?” that is why we kicked him out.
But Pierre, you’re spoiling the quality of your rather assidous writing by abusing the misinformation that Mbeki interferred in the Selebi issue, even when the facts are not so, even according to Pikoli himself. do you hate mbeki that much? even to compromise the integrity of your articles? come on now, criticise where it’s due, as you usually do and stop trying to sound popular (sounding fashionable to win favours with the in-clique) by overstretching criticism of Mbeki.
Gwebecimele says:
October 27, 2009 at 12:02 pm
That’s nasty. Mbeki was not kicked out, he was recalled.
Just because he told Charlene Smith that she’s racist because she dared to raise the awareness of the horrors of rape after her own brutal experience, does not make him insensitive.
Just because he got Madiba to shut up and sit in the corner, does not make him disrespectful of Mandela even though deserved a whole lot more respect and regard, after all Mandela did have his 27 + 9 years of fame and glory (and he did wear ugly shoes).
Just because he thought that the RDP was unimportant despite the massive effort of most roleplayers effort into developing the policy, does not mean that GEAR was not the way to go in our developmental state.
Just Mathias Rath is discredited in other countries, does not mean that our South African scientists had a better take on AIDS even though they are highly regarded in scientific and academic circles.
Just because he snubbed society, does not mean that he thought that people are irrelevant.
Eish – my fingers are sore – but you get the drift.
So play fair.
@Gwebecimele,
Kicked him(Mbeki) out of what?
khosi says:
October 27, 2009 at 12:31 pm
THE ANC of course …
I’ll venture that he is not on one of the senior committees in the ANC Structures. Please prove me wrong!
… I mean, why would the upcoming full interview be also about COPE?
Maggs Naidu says:
October 27, 2009 at 12:31 pm
LOL… Classical. Reminds me of Mark Anthony when he said;
“I come here to bury Caesar but not to praise him,
The eveil that man do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar.
The noble Brutus (LOL! Yeah Right) hath told you that Caesar was ambitious
And if it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously Caesar hath answered it.”
Did I get all of that right? I think I was still doing Standard 5 (present day Grade 7) when I first took interest in that book and read it.
@Maggs Naidu says:
October 27, 2009 at 9:12 am
The perception of what constitutes a crime varies depending on the prevailing circumstances and culture of the time.
Today we are experiencing mismanagement, corruption and the disappearance of billions of Rands from the coffers of various State, semi-State and local Government enterprises. Seldom are these cases followed up and the “criminals” arrested and punished- and if the are, dockets get lost and they end up being swept under the carpet. To some, these are crimes that need to be addressed and punishment metered out, but to others this is regarded as “just rewards for the “struggle”.
The need to sustain and build the infrastructure of the country, the need for eduction, health care, law and order, and particularly the need to uplift the poor, are swept unde the carpet in the frantic race for more and more bling.
Are these not crimes againt humanity?
We are also experiencing a very high incidence of murder, rape and other violent crimes, and once again, nothing happens to address this (1 in 9 reported cases are followed up)- and often it is regarded as “part of our culture”. Are these not also crimes against humanity?
As I say, the perception of what is right and what is wrong, what is a crime and what is justifiable retribution, varies according to circumstances. The idealistic views of what constitutes “Objective Reality” and what constitutes “Truth”, really depend on each of our perceptions, values, historical experiences and maybe even the weather forcast.
Gwebecimele, thanks for the invite and legitimate expectation about my possible reaction to Prof’s post. Because of my computer’s problem I have just seen the post now, despite the fact that it was posted yesterday and that I have been on this blog since 8h00 am. However, I have managed to go through the post and responses by other colleagues. Although I do not have much time now to analyze it point-by-point and provide my counter to some of Prof’s analytical statements and conclusions; I would not hva put it better than Khosi 26, 2009 at 11:58 am that the honorable Prof is raising issues that have been debated, at times, to saturation in this blog. What I like is that he seem to be doing it the Mbeki way of not responding (although PdV did offer some of the responses when some of these issues raised in his post were debated before) to Tony Leon at the time he is raising his critics to Mbeki and his government and wait for when Tony’s guards are off and then hit him very hard with accusations of being ill-informed and racists (sometimes justifiable but at times doing so for defense purposes), given the time at which he raises them now – long after we have already debated them in the past. He did this knowing very well that Tony at this time will not be having his note book of statistics to justify why he says crime is in the rise and the government is failing. May be there is a point that Prof wanted to raise that was not raised in the past or provide new supporting evidence to the point of view he advanced in the past. Be that as it may I still share Khosi’s view that nothing new really seem to be coming out that is substantial to change my view on these issues as we discussed them in the past.
Prof is raising the issue of Mbeki’s denial of the link between HIV and AIDS the same way he did in the previous posts which yielded different views with some like myself arguing that he was deliberately quoted out of context for malicious and political reasons, among other things; and that what he said which was true then as it still is today and will probably be true tomorrow if no action is taken, is that poverty and related aspects are contributory to why young and vulnerable women sell unprotected sex to make ends meat which at the end of the day achieves the A (Acquired)-letter in the abbreviation AIDS. Prof decided not to acknowledge this view but rather his original one which was objected by some of us. So it is the Prof’s view versus those of us who do not share this view. For more info on this, as Khosi clearly stated, are in abundance in the previous posts of this blog.
The same applies to the issues of whether or not the objectives of the pharmaceutical companies are all the times noble to the effect that one can safely conclude that making profit is secondary to extending the life span of the HIV/AIDS affected people. My view has always and still is that their interests in profit making is priority than the life of the sick; hence they will not support anyone and anything that makes people aware that their products are dealing with the symptoms and not the causes and that if the human race is to win the war against HIV they must look at the real causes and address them. This is what Mbeki has been saying and we all know what became of him. Prof also did not want to cloud his view on this issue with this one that was raised in the past when this issue was discussed. The possibility is that Prof may not be agreeing with these views and in any case in this post he was putting his point of view. While I respect his views (inasmuch as he respects mine) it’s a question of us having to agree to disagree.
But I must indicate that not all PdV has raised in this post are off the rail, some are true about Mbeki and such acts were wrong but we need to understand them within the context of his position, the political environment under which he ruled the country and the “objective reality” he wanted all of us including his enemies and criminals to share, understand and help his government to achieve – that is the one I suppose in which he is seen as a great African intellectual leader who is seen as democratic and accepted by all, one who is running a clean and corruptless government e.t.c; hence he instructed the doctoring of the arms deal report the evidence of which is there for all to see and will be difficult for anyone in my view to cover up, among other things. But these are not unique to Mbeki and Prof himself acknowledges as he mentioned similar acts by other presidents of great countries in the world – the US. And if the Mail & Guardian is not continuing its counter-revolutionary work against the current government, then the new admin has already started its new chapter of old tricks in doctoring the crime statistics that Mthethwa boasted of the other day that they were indicating decline in some of the criminal practices (may be as a result of the new government’s shoot to kill approach), and this may be the tips of an ice bag – meaning if PdV, you and I will still be alive, come 2014 the honorable Prof will be pasting similar posts that details how bad Zuma’s government was and you and I will still be trying very hard to justify why it was or was not bad.
Looking forward to the bit about Cope especially that it is founded by those that he trusted and appointed. Did’nt his mom also join the party?
Maggs. Yeah right. Yes he was recalled if that makes people feel better.
Khosi you are really fond of the man, lets leave it at that.
By the way when is the School of Machavellian Studies opening up at Unisa.
Thanks for the posting Mayimele. I will comment shortly.
Prof, I take your point. It just seems to me that you have (unintentionally?) conflated one or two things, namely what you refer to as Mbeki’s “objectively reality”, “our reality” (which you speak of in your post under reply), and the reality of how courts operate.
To my mind Mbeki’s conplaint, as qouted by you, speaks to the latter reality, yet you seem to somehow have transposed it to “our” reality. The complaint,even as quoted by you, is unassailable. A unanimous bench of the SCA has said so.
If it is true that Mbeki is speaking to the reality of the courts, then it cannot be correct to say that his statement holds true only in “Mbeki’s objective reality in which he lives” and that the rest of us can correctly go on as if he’s crazy.
In short, I just don’t think that those statements as reported by the Sunday Independent belong in your post about master narratives.
Justice says:
October 27, 2009 at 13:29 pm
The perception of what constitutes a crime varies depending on the prevailing circumstances and culture of the time.
———————————————————————————————————-
Great perspective.
So the holocaust can be regarded as a non-crime at the time because the prevailing culture at the time said it was ok to rip babies apart, gas millions, conduct all kinds of medical experiments on people including evaluating how much pain people could tolerate before they die and and and.
It was ok for the Rwandan genocide because the prevailing culture said it was ok to butcher other Rwandans.
Eish!
BTW – whose culture do you regard as the “culture of the time”?
Sivakashi says:
October 27, 2009 at 13:57 pm
“yet you seem to somehow have transposed it to ‘our’ reality.”
How does Pierre do that?
Maggs Naidu, I do not dislike either Jacob Zuma or Helen Zille or Julius Malema (whom I have described as “cute”) or even John Hlophe. I do have some serious personal issues with Mbeki because of his position on HIV/AIDS, a position, so it is reported this weekend, that even Joel Netshitenzhe got so insensed with that he stormed into Mbeki’s office once to demand that he stopped the madness. I do take issue with some of the things they do and say as I tghink it is my democratic right and duty to do so as a patriotic South African. But since you ask, I could be said to really like the following politicians: Barack Obama (despite his conservative tendencies), Jeremy Cronin (despite him being the deputy to Blade Nzimande), Kader Asmal (despite his tendency to talk about himself), the Reverend Mvume Dandala (despite being too quiet and nice to be a good politician), Naledi Pandor (despite the “fake American accent”), Patricia de Lille (despite being a one woman outfit), Joel Netshitenzhe (despite having being a Mbeki right hand man) and the Arch (despite being religious).
Khosi,you raise a very interesting point. Given the animosity(?) between Mbeki and Pikoli I had also thought that the rest of us have little choice but to accept that the former pres. never intefered in the prosecution of JZ. Given Mbeki and Pikoli’s history it is difficult for me ignore Pikoli’s sworn statements to that effect – but that’s a topic for another day.
Pierre De Vos says:
October 27, 2009 at 14:23 pm
I am excluded.
Damn!
And Dwork too!
Maggs
Yes. Atrocities have been committed by many people in many countries over the centuries and justified in the name of some or other expedient policy or cause. The holocaust is brought up repeatedly ad nauseum, but the atrocities committed by the Stalin regime, that make Hitler look like Mary Poppins, are seldom mentioned. Why? And why Ruanda and not Cambodia? The sanctimonious moral stand against “crimes against humanity” is relatively new. Once again- objectivity according to whom? according to whose reality? and whose truth? IS there really only one “truth” or only “a truth”?
I await your replies to my questions as to whether the enrichment of the politically connected, whilst depriving the millions of poor in our country of a better quality of life, is not a crime againt humanity; and whether tolerating high murder, rape and other violent crimes is not also a crime against humanity.
PS the culture of the time is that of the dominant or ruling group (e.g. that of the Kmer Rouge in Cambodia).
Prof. There is no DA member or politician in your list, are you free to explain that?
@ Gwebecimele
I believe the Prof could have included more people in his list had he had the time and had he considered that necessary. In view of the fact that he could and has made his point with the short list above, he chose not to extend it to avoid redundancy.
Khosi et al, if you have read the various Pikoli affidavits it would become apparent that your statement that Pikoli had said that Mbeki had never interfered in his prosecutorial decisions would become laughable. Pikoli’s ENTIRE case is that Mbeki had interfered in the Selebi matter, had suspended him because Pikoli had wanted to arrest Selebi while Mbeki did not want him to and had asked him not to do so. When he refused to obey this request, he was suspended (after he had refused to obey the unlawful instructions of the Minister not to arrest Selebi). In any case, Ngcuka had made no similar claim. I for one would love to subject Ngcuka and Mbeki to a lie detector test and ask them some questions about whom said what to whom about the prosecution of Zuma and others involved in arms deal corruption.
Sne. I guess you are his Spokeperson lately.
Tell him he is free not to answer but that is my observation.
Gwebecimele says:
October 27, 2009 at 15:23 pm
LOL! That was a good one.
I am glad I have made you realise that your question was not necessary as it was based on an incorrect assumption…
Justice says:
October 27, 2009 at 14:56 pm
Indeed the corruption and criminality is sheer criminality and should and must be prosecuted.
That said, back to the essence of our earlier posts.
The culture during the apartheid – was it in your opinion that of the oppressors, the oppressed or the international community that ought to have determined that apartheid was a crime?
Maggs Naidu says:
October 27, 2009 at 16:24 pm
And what about atrocities committed by the ANC in exile? Were these crimes against humanity too?
To reply to your questioin under the issue of “our earlier posts”, imho, it WAS the culture of the international community that determined that apartheid was a crime, but it OUGHT to have been the culture of the bible-totin’ oppressors themselves, blind and they were to that “reality”. It was only when they were faced with gross economic pressure from the international community that almost resulted in a complete financial meltdown, that they took the path that they did -there was no other option.
@Pierre De Vos,
’so it is reported this weekend, that even Joel Netshitenzhe got so insensed with that he stormed into Mbeki’s office once to demand that he stopped the madness.’
Could you please point me to the article that you refer to. I think if Mr Netshitenzhe could do that and still keep his place in the so called ‘Mbeki inner circle’ then naturally one would then assume that Mbeki did not surround himself with ‘yes men’ and he was not the dictator he is always accused of being.
“I do have some serious personal issues with Mbeki because of his position on HIV/AIDS, a position, so it is reported this weekend, that even Joel Netshitenzhe got so insensed with that he stormed into Mbeki’s office once to demand that he stopped the madness.”
Pierre, Please spend some time and read this article by an American doctor who seems to interpreted the obvious content of Thabo Mbeki’s discourse on HIV and AIDS in a manner that Mayimele, Khosi, myself and many others (including Joel Netshitenzhe) have. Note the dispassion and the clear conclusions based on an analysis of fact and context. I repeat for the sake of clarity (because these are clearly alien concepts to you), FACT and CONTEXT:
http://www.hollerafrica.com/showArticle.php?catId=1&artId=51
Afterwards please explain to me how despite the volume of facts contradicting your views, the DA’s views, the liberal media’s views, the TAC’s views, Cameron’s views, etc, about Mbeki’s position of HIV/AIDS you can still persist on your views about his position on HIV/AIDS? I truly am amazed at how easily people can ignore a preponderance of facts merely because they dislike a person for what they think they said. To me this is no different from being prejudiced on the basis of race or religion (justifying such prejudice on the basis of some misconceptions about race or religion). At least the damage of your prejudice is limited to the lawyers you train at UCT (who will obviously not be able to distinguish between fact, belief and fiction). But individuals like Judge Cameron, the many journalists and politicians concern me immensely. How can we trust our freedoms to be safe when a judge of the CC, politicians and the fourth estate cannot distinguish fact from fiction?
Justice says:
October 27, 2009 at 16:51 pm
LOL!
khosi says:
October 27, 2009 at 16:54 pm
Khosi, don’t you laugh daily when all the so-called evils of Thabo Mbeki are daily revealed to be merely the figment of the active imaginations of the likes of Pierre et alle. Accusations of being surrounded by “yes men/women” contradicted by the existence of cabinet ministers who so obviously agitated against him (with his knowledge), e.g. Radebe, Sisulu, etc, and now apparently Joel. “Complicity with dictators”, such as Mugabe, yet with Tsvangarai attributing the peace process Mbeki brokered to have resulted in a reduction of political violence. “Closet dictator and anti-democrat”, yet the man resigns without even a murmur when asked to do so. “Anti media freedom”, yet the man never sued a single newspaper. “Racist”, for igniting a debate about race, reconcialiation and transformation, which recent events have shown to be solely required. “Centralizer of Power”, yet the presidency is now centralizing powers to more stupendous levels without comment from the PdVs of this world. “Aloof” yet our present “people’s president” is know more visible than he was, etc, etc.
Amazing really, yet I trust that prejudice, fuelled by lies and distortions, will continue influencing the views of the likes of PdV about the man.
Pierre,
Perhaps you could also consider reading the following from the same doctor:
http://www.hollerafrica.com/showArticle.php?artId=65&catId=3
http://www.hollerafrica.com/showArticle.php?artId=141&catId=3
After all, if unreconstructed apartheid racists like Adrian Vlok can change their views when confronted by facts, I have hope that progressives, such as yourself and the honourable Cameron could similarly change (and perhaps wash a certain Mr Mbeki’s feet?).
@Vuyo,
Mr brother, I would love to laugh but it really makes me sad and to the larger extent angry. To me its seems like Pierre and his similar undesirables are engaged in a project to write history in a certain way. And that is dangerous for the future of the African child. They seem to want to dim our shining lights so that we, as Africans, ultimately loose direction.
And then, as you say, we loose sight of the ‘objective reality’ that is prevailing as we speak. There is so much wrong prevailing in our country right now and the likes of Pierre and his similar undesirables are even blaming that on him without asking questions of the current crop of leaders. The hate speak is the only language that seems to be prevailing.
Why is it like that? I ask. The prophecy of African pessimism needs to prevail, at all cost, so it seems.
Khosi, it was reported in the Sunday Independent in article entitled “Peter Mayibuye…”.
Vuyo, I see you quote one AMERICAN doctor. I am familiar with that line of reasoning (also with the arguments made by Didier Fassin in his book “Bodies that Matter” and others). I choose to follow the facts and what Mbeki himself had said. Have tyou read the Gevisser book? Do you know that Mbeki had sent Gevisser an udpated version of the infamous Castro Hhlongwane document and stated he still be,lieved all that stuff? Did you read Feinstein on what Mbeki aghd said in caucus? Did you read the interview of Mbeki with Time and New York Times where he said a virus cannot cause a syndrome? Did you read the interveiw of Mbeki denying that he knew anyone who had died of AIDS (despite Parks, Peter Mokaba etc dying of AIDS)? Have you read http://www.aidstruth.org/news/2009/martin-weinel-thabo-mbeki-hivaids-and-bogus-scientific-controversies? Do you know about this: DATE: 28 June 2001
EVENT: Mbeki meets with President Bush and refuses to link HIV with AIDS
SOURCE: Ross, Sonya. “Bush, Mbeki Discuss AIDS in Africa.” The Associated Press, 27 Jun 2001. South African President Thabo Mbeki again refused to link HIV with AIDS, even though he agreed “that’s what the scientists say.”
And this? DATE: 24 April 2001
EVENT: eTV interview on “On The Record”
SOURCE: Cohen, Mike. “Mbeki Questions HIV Testing.” The Associated Press, 24 Apr 2001. But in a rare live broadcast on the private television station e-TV, Mbeki reignited the debate Tuesday, saying he would not take a public HIV test as it would send a message that he supported a particular scientific viewpoint. I go and do a test – I am confirming a particular paradigm,” he said. “I think it would be criminal if our government did not deal with the toxicity of these drugs,” he said. “Let’s stop politicizing this question, let’s deal with the science of it.” And this? DATE: 23 October 2000
EVENT: Speaks before municipal elections SOURCE: Forrest, Drew. “Behind The Smokescreen: The Record Reveals President Thabo Mbeki’s True Stance On Aids (Opinion).” Mail and Guardian, 26 Oct 2000. Before the municipal elections, he says South Africans are being used as “guinea pigs” and conned into using dangerous drugs. He likens the use of drugs in the DA-controlled Western Cape to “biological warfare of the apartheid era” (October 23 2000). And this? DATE: 28 September 2000 EVENT: Address to African National Congress MPs at a caucus meeting in Parliament in Cape Town. SOURCE: Mail and Guardian, 6 Oct 2000. President Thabo Mbeki believes the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is part of a conspiracy to promote the view that HIV causes Aids. Mbeki also thinks that the CIA is working covertly alongside the big US pharmaceutical manufacturers to undermine him because, by questioning the link between HIV and Aids, he is thought to pose a risk to the profits of drug companies making anti-retroviral treatments. He said the propaganda being made against him because of his stance on HIV/Aids was a foretaste of attempts to undermine him and South Africa that were being mounted by those determined to defend the established world economic order. Mbeki said that if one agreed that HIV caused Aids, it followed that the condition had to be treated by drugs and those drugs were produced by the big Western drug companies. The drug companies therefore needed HIV to cause Aids, so they promoted the thesis that HIV caused Aids, he said. And this? DATE: 20 September 2000
EVENT: Answering questions posed in parliament
SOURCE: Harvey, Marjolein. “How can a virus cause a syndrome? asks Mbeki” iClinic, 21 Sep 2000. http://www.aegis.com/news/woza/2000/IC000906.html “All HIV/AIDS programmes of this government are based on the thesis that HIV causes AIDS,” said Mbeki, adding “There is absolutely no confusion about what to do.” But he went on to ask “Does HIV cause AIDS? Can a virus cause a syndrome? How? It can’t, because a syndrome is a group of diseases resulting from acquired immune deficiency.” He said that the question still unresolved by scientists is: what contribution does HIV make to the collapse of the immune system? And this? DATE: October 1999 EVENT: Alleges that AZT is unsafe. SOURCE: Wakin, Daniel. “Mbeki’s AZT Claims Set Off Debate.” The Associated Press, 2 Nov 1999. In his speech Thursday, Mbeki spoke of a “large volume of scientific evidence alleging that, among other things, the toxicity of this drug is such that it is in fact a danger to health.” Mbeki said that it would be “irresponsible” not to heed the “dire warnings” of researchers about the safety of AZT, which is one of the world’s oldest and best-known AIDS drugs. Reputable scientists have issued no such warnings, and it was unclear what he was referring to.
See also http://www.thebody.com/content/art52090.html?getPage=5
Ooh , take that Vuyo and Khosi, that has to hurt like a punch to the solar plexus!
@Pierre De Vos at 10:28 am
I am in disbelief that you see nothing wrong with answering that question even if doing so undoes many of your very accusation that you give to Mbeki. I even alerted you to such a danger but still like a horse with blinkers on, you saw nothing wrong in confirming the absurdity of your long held accusations about Mbeki being a autocrat and a dictator who surrounded himself with yes men.
Dude, how many days did it take for you to finish your degree? 10 days perhaps! Which books did you read? Law for Dummies!
@Pierre,
On AIDS and the CIA plot… Please answer this for me:-
Was it not the CIA that ensured that Mandela was caught and arrested for 27 years?
Was it not the CIA that manufactured evidence against Iraq? Evidence that ensured that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are killed and their natural resources looted for, as you say ‘profits’?
Where do you derive the courage to defend any claims against the CIA?
@Pierre,
On AZT…. Please answer this for me:-
You say:- “Reputable scientists have issued no such warnings, and it was unclear what he was referring to.”
Was AZT not designed to aid in chemotherapy which naturally kills human cells? Did you know that HIV affects on average one in a thousand cells in a human body and AZT kill human cells indiscriminately? To people who are devoid of the ability to apply their mind, like yourself, that means AZT will also kill healthy cells in HIV positive people.
Do you think the scientist that came up with AZT are ‘reputable’? And have you seen the packaging of AZT? And why was AZT re branded and renamed to Retrovir? Gosh were you even aware of that fact?
Where does Pierre derive the courage to define as “facts” excerpts from newspaper articles? It’s as persuasive as taking an excerpt from The Citizen newspaper (circa 1986) and adducing it as evidence of the benign nature of apartheid.
Hi Pierre it seems Manto may have been correct after all (about nutrition, veggies, beetroot, garlic and tea) or alternatively Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital are liars and denialists. One thing for sure, their assertions are likely to be credible to the TAC and yourself, after all the findings are of credible Western institutions and not the looney black Minister of Health.
http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2009/02/02/daily48.html
Vuyo and Khosi: I see the crackpots will be always with us. But I admire you two for your ability to deny that which is before your very own eyes: Just because 99.99999999999% of the people around the world say that the earth is round does not mean one is not allowed to claim it is flat. It might be a bit embarrassing for oneself and one’s family to persist in such folly despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but everyone has the right to make a fool of himself or herself and you two are no exception. That is why democracy and freedom are such wonderful things.
Fact is, the quotes are of Mbeki IN HIS OWN WORDS. Mbeki never denied having made any of these statements, never demanded retractions, never sued anyone, for publishing these quotes. Most of them were taped on video or audio. But I guess that would not be good enough for you. One calls that DENIALISM.
Fact is, on this issue the scientific consensus is about as settled as the scientific consensus on the fact that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. Somewhere in Pofadder oom Kosie van der Merwe may think otherwise but it is not really something one can argue with or take seriously. It is more a matter of feeling a bit sioirry and embarrassed about such folly. But as someone with first hand experience of HIV I do not need the 99% of scientists who have contradicted Mbeki to tell me HIV causes AIDS or that ARVs work – I have seen with my own eyes that HIV makes you sick and ARV’s makes you better.
Fact is, just because Mbeki ONCE allowed Joel to contradict him does not mean he was not an aloof autocrat. One swallow does not make a summer. Often the exception merely proves the rule. To claim otherwise is to clutch at straws in the face of an overwhelming consensus to the opposite. I am sure I could find examples of Verwoerd or PW Botha doing kind things, but that does not make either of them kind hearted people. But I guess some among us will continue to defend the indefensible 9some people really still think Verwoerd was a nice man too.). It is of course understandable that you persist despite all evidence to the contrary and despite the overwhelming consensus out there that you are wrong. It cannot be very nice to go to sleep every night knowing one has blindly followed a man whom a Harvard study shows has caused the deaths of about 300 000 fellow South Africans (and not even one of them was Jonathan Jansen and very few of them were white racists supporters of apartheid).
On an earth that is flat as against the one that is round…..
FACT is, at some point in human history, people did overwhelmingly think that the earth was indeed flat. That was until ‘crackpots’ started saying ‘No, that cannot be!’. But hey, they were also crucified and the rest is history. For you, Pierre, that is a disastrous analogy because it can only lead to ‘crackpots’ like us thinking that history is fraught with people who dared ask questions of subjects already decided. They were crucified but their thoughts later prevailed. BAD BAD move!!!
On views about AIDS and related matters…..
Myself and Vuyo spend the day forwarding content arguments on the HIV and AIDS issue, you retort by trying to prove that Mbeki is wrong.
The biggest problem about your AIDS argument is that it is based on Mbeki being wrong and NOT your point of view being the right one. There is a sea of difference between the two. You seem to, chronically, base your point of view on correcting Mbeki the person other than correcting his views by countering them with your own views and presuppositions.
When he says “Personally, I don’t know anybody who has died of Aids”, you cannot retaliate because technically he is very correct.
When he says “No, but it would be setting an example within the context of a particular paradigm.”, you do not defend the said paradigm because that particular paradigm has had 30 years but it is still to prove itself as a viable solution to the problem.
When he says “How can a virus cause a syndrome?”, you offer nothing to prove that a virus can indeed cause a syndrome.
….etcetera… etcetera … etcetera
Furthermore you fail to answer why it is that AIDS amongst the Caucasians is overwhelmingly affects the gay/lesbian group but with Africans, it affects heterosexuals.
So because you cannot disprove his views, you then label him names and you spend a lot of effort in proving that he is indeed what you have labeled him. Hence, the endless referrals ABOUT what he said and NOTHING disputing what he said. I suppose that you do this in search of a small victory that you hope will cover up your failure to dispute what he says.
I think that you have a messed up colonial mind. I have no idea what it is that you are trying to make up for, but our history is froth by actions of one group(the Boer) suppressing another group (Africans) in order to appease and maintain relations with another(the English). You do the math.
the last post is address to Pierre de Vos and his similar undesirables.
Sne. Wrong myquestion is not based on any assumption but I will accept PdV choice of not answering my question.
Khosi, your argument is illogical: At first scientists were confused about HIV. There were many theories (is the earth flat? is it round?). Then as they did more research the theories of some (HIV causes AIDS; the earth is round) won out over other theories (a virus cannot cause a syndrome; the earth is flat). Today we know the earth is round. We also know that HIV is a virus, that if untreated it will cause the immune system to disintegrate and that if one is treated with ARV’s it will usually halt the progression of the virus. Hundreds of thousands of scientific studies have been done and through aprocess of illimination the theories flirted with by Mbeki was rejected. I do not disprove Mbeki’s theory’s as his theory’s are so discredited (not through people asserting beliefs, but through thousands of scientific studies and through practical experience – today I see a dying patienmt with Aids, tomorrow I give that patioent ARV,s in a few weeks I see that patient recover) that there is nothing to argue about. The fact that you think there is, is scary.
What cannot be denied is the fact that we never supplied drugs that would have reduced mother to child transmission by more than one third until 300 000 lives were lost. You can add to that our Child and Infant mortality figures which are pathetic by any standards and there is very little to debate. TM might have tried to play commercial games and politics with the pharmaceuticals but at what cost. By the way in my books, this is not his worst moment, he had a good plan it just went horribly wrong.
Never again should we gamble with so many lives!!!!!!!!!!!
Gwebecimele says:
October 28, 2009 at 15:58 pm
What cannot be denied too is that our local scientists and medical professionals of repute were treated almost with contempt against the views of a discredited quack!
@ Pierre De Vos at 15:41 pm
In short, YOU are STILL unable to dispute his questions.
Pierre, you are an academic linked to a mainstream university and can therefore not be excused for misrepresenting reality. Interact with your colleagues in the sciences and ask them the factors that affect research and development. They will inform you are that they receive most of their funding through collaborative R&D projects with private institutions. They will inform you that the majority of funding for R&D originates from the private sector. They will inform you that R&D projects in the pharmaceutical and medicinal industry is funded primarily by the big pharmaceutical companies. They will inform you that the direction of R&D is motivated by the extent to which the funders perceive a future financial benefit. They will inform you of the many R&D projects they abandoned solely on the basis of funders not seeing any commercialization benefit of the R&D projects, and not on the merits of the innovation or discovery. To cite hundreds of thousands of studies, the vast majority of which have been funded by private parties with a vested interest in outcomes supportive of their paradigm, is not at all persuasive. What is clear to me is that you have sheepishly relied on the volume of studies contradicting Mbeki and therefore concluded that he must be wrong (no different from quoting the volumes of apartheid judgments and on the basis thereof, concluding “they are many therefore they are correct”). The uncontrovertibly reality is that vast amounts have been spent on only one direction of research, and vast sums have been spent on research on one paradigm of treatment. The incontrovertible reality is that peer review and publication, R&D, and even academic fellowships are inextricably connected to the type of R&D that society (i.e. big business) deems acceptable? The incontrovertible reality is that you will not have a career in the HIV or AIDS fields of study unless you adopt the one specific paradigm (in fact you will be called a crackpot and will probably not be able to feed your family). I am mystified why this is so, particularly if the science about HIV and AIDS is so incontrovertible? I would have though that knowledge sharing would help pool resources and expedite the finding of solutions? After all, that is how all human diseases were combated, through pooling of knowledge and resources from the most diverse fields. Interestingly even those who believe in the causal nexus of HIV and AIDS, those who disagree with ARVs as a solution are called crackpots and their academic offices and R&D grants are withdrawn! Mystifying really, and still you have the temerity to suggest that the science of HIV and AIDS is incontrovertibly clear based on “thousands of studies” (peer reviewed by whom, if not those supportive of one paradigm)!
Regards Mbeki, you have clearly not once interrogated the merits of his arguments (hence you illiterately still raise as a smoking gun statements like “can a virus cause a syndrome” and “I have never met anyone who has died of AIDS”, all of which, by the way, he is technically correct), otherwise the glaring inconsistencies on the approach regards AIDS would be obvious to you and you would know that the so-called “discredited” or “rejected” theories have in fact not once even been addressed! In fact the HIV and AIDS debate eventually evolved from the 1999/2000 obsession with HAART to an adoption of a petered down comprehensive approach, globally around 2006, as had been advocated publicly by Mbeki (in simple terms, like the incompetents comprising the “media”, you are stuck in debates and discussions of a decade ago, that in some instance s have been largely resolved). I suppose, though its easier to be safe in condemning what you know very little of otherwise it may just have an impact in your material comfort as well as your reputation as a “liberal”, “activist” and “progressive”, particularly in the TAC, Sachs and/or Cameron circles. A bit like not questioning why backs aren’t allowed to vote because it will shake the boat a bit and likely lead to some material discomfort and maybe even a stint in the dungeons?
I will elect to dismiss your references to personal experience as being mere rhetorical flourish, not intended to be taken seriously. After all, I similarly know as many people who have worsened after using ARVs (and some who died) as I know those who have recovered (and subsequently died of anemia, liver problems, etc); but cannot make incontrovertible conclusions based on these observations. One thing is nonetheless clear, Botswana, the beacon of all that is good in Africa (according to liberals, compradors and the west), with a comprehensive HAART program (partly financed by George Bush’s funds and bound accordingly to source from American companies expensive drugs rather than cheap generics) has not seen a decline in HIV and AIDS cases, has 37% of its adult population either has HIV or AIDS, has continually increasing infection rates, has AIDS orphans galore, is facing problems with resistance and accordingly requires more expensive ARVs, its Health budget is consumed by HIV issues, and yet is considered the example South Africa must emulate! One thing for certain, If I was a share jobber, I’d say buy long as many shares as you cab grab of any company that produces ARVs for delivery in RSA. The financial dividends are the only dividends coming out of this story. And you Pierre can be thanked as one of the greatest salespersons of this racket.
Lastly Pierre, maybe the following quote from another pro-drug lobby “protector” of our constitution may help put things in perspective for you (remember, he had earlier alleged that the emphasis on poverty as a key factor in AIDS was “echoing one of the key dogmas of denialism” (The dead hand of denialism, E Cameron May 9, 2003):
“A malnourished, untended patient, living in a shack and beset with other infections, cannot benefit from antiretroviral treatment alone. She is entitled to broader social opportunities and interventive remedies, including food and housing and clean water and medical care.” (Justice Edwin Cameron, Witness to Aids – 2007)
My respect for the prof’s integrity and convincing presentattion of argument
is uncomfortably shattered by his claim:
] there is such a wealth of evidence supporting the fact of fabrication
] (of evidence of WMD) that only a few die-hard George Bush supporter will now
] claim that Bush and his cronies were not thoroughly rotten and dishonest about
] the reasons for going to war with Iraq…
So PLEASE someone, provide argument that I may realise that it’s not just the loonie
left that’s spread a conspiracy theory about GWB. And to help you get started, here
are some prompts: what was GWB’s motive? Selling arms, getting oil contracts?
Did they plan 9/11 too, or was it just an opportunity that they exploited?
How does 9/11 compare with Pearl-Harbour, or is a comparison inappropriate?
Did they know that Saddam was just bluffing, with his ambigious obstruction of
the nuclear-inspectors? Is present Iran a repeat of the GWB farce? Is the 1st gulf
war relevant, and was that terminated, eg. by some document, and if so why was the
no-fly-zone-patrolling and shooting continuing? I.e. am I wrong that the lefties
falsely imply the GWB *started* a new war? How is it that I’ve been fooled by
the GWB gang, when “there is such a wealth of evidence”? What are the other most
evil deed of the GWB gang? Did the US democratise and develop Germany, Japan
and Korea, or is that just a coincidence?
== PS. As a confirmed racist [one who believes that mental attributes are largely
determined by the genes: race & gender], I note that TM’s brother show a remarkable
ability to talk western-logic.
_Yes, the very concept of “objective reality” is a mere western construct, imposed
by the exploiting colonists/settlers. A more valid paradigm is [current] “tradition”
which has been vetted and honed by the collective wisdom of the people, over time.
Reasoning by analogy allows tradition to morph, eg. as new technology demands.
Let the trumpeter’s of “SA’s great progress since ‘94″ be reminded that where
you are now, depends on your educational outcomes of previous decades, and
where you’ll be in future depends on your recent education. As Zimbabawe has
been able to survive on it’s substantial educational capital accumulated
in the first decade of imdependance, so also will SA’s destiny be determined
by the educational “progress” since ‘94. Try to understand that the HIV that
hit you today, was bought long ago