Few recent events have highlighted the racial fault lines in South African society more starkly than the recent death of Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. While many South Africans (mostly white) have welcomed the death of the late Minister, pointing to her disastrous management of the HIV/AIDS crisis and the untold suffering and death caused by it, many other South Africans (mostly black) have chosen not to highlight her faults, pointing to an African tradition of not speaking ill of the dead.
Some argue in essence that in a diverse society they have no duty to respect the cultural traditions of the majority, just as they do not demand that the majority respect their traditions. Others claim that the lack of respect shown for African tradition is deeply hurtful or even racist and demonstrates an inability or unwillingness on the part of some white South Africans to embrace reconciliation.
This is a complex matter, not only because cultural traditions and practices are contested, are therefore not static, and are sometimes exploited for political gain, but also because it goes to the heart of how we manage diversity in a deeply divided society.
South Africa is, of course, not the only country grappling with this problem.
All over Europe debates are raging about what the white majority can expect from immigrant populations. In France, for example, the debate focuses on the duty of the minority Muslim population to respect or even embrace French cultural practices in order to become “full” French citizens.
It seems to me a good way of approaching this issue is to adopt a principle championed by former Justice Albie Sachs in the context of the right to freedom of religion in cases where religious practices clash with broader values espoused by the Constitution. Sachs argued that the state and others have a duty to make a “reasonable accommodation” of such practices in order to respect both the secular and the sacred within the disciplining framework of the Constitution.
What is required, first, is to listen respectfully and to actually hear the views of those who do not share your own cultural beliefs and world view. Too often we shout past each other and make assumptions about what people believe without hearing their views and considering them in an honest and open manner.
Second, we should accept that in a constitutional democracy based on human dignity, equality and freedom no cultural belief or practice is automatically sacrosanct (even if it is embraced by a majority of citizens). To hold otherwise would be to place an absolute limit on the freedom of every individual to decide for him or herself how to live a life of dignity and respect according to his or her own ethical rules and beliefs.
Third, this does not mean we should not strive to respect and accommodate the cultural beliefs and practices of other members of society where it is reasonably possible to do so without fundamentally betraying our own values and normative commitments. We all live in the same country and if we are to foster mutual respect for one another, we should be sensitive to the views of others without abdicating our own dignity and our freedom. Personally, my normative commitments closely mirror those enshrined in the Constitution and requires me to balance my own freedom, right to speak my mind and dignity on the one hand, with respect for the dignity and freedom of others, on the other.
When someone thus demands that I should not do or say something because it runs counter to their cultural beliefs or practices, I will ask whether that belief or practice has a valid goal and whether respecting it will fundamentally detract from my own dignity and freedom. Where someone says that a hatred of homosexuals is part of his or her culture, for example, I will not respect that and will speak out against it because to shut up would be deeply oppressive and dehumanizing for me.
Although it is not part of my particular culture, it seems to me a practice that demands some circumspection when speaking about the recently deceased can be reasonably accommodated without betraying one’s most cherished beliefs and principles or commitment to honesty and truth. Respect for the feelings of the family and friends of a recently deceased person can – in my view at least – be squared with my own notion of my own dignity and the dignity of all the members of society with whom I share the country.
In a diverse country in which people differ sharply on cultural beliefs and practices, it seems to me we will all be better off if we try to understand and respect such differences where it seems reasonably possible to do so. If one feels that it is not, one should be able to have an honest debate about it and should be able to justify why – in a particular case – respect for the cultural beliefs and practices of another is impossible if one is to hold on to one’s own dignity and one’s commitment about freedom and equality.
In such matters reasonable people might well differ and do so respectfully. On this Blog some participants have expressed some harsh views (based on their religious or cultural beliefs) on the alleged evils of homosexuality. As a rule I have not jumped down their throats as long as they expressed their views in a rational and reasoned manner. It is, after all, in the very nature of a constitutional democracy that people will differ with one another about fundamental issues that goes to the heart of their identities. But we all too often forget that when someone differs from you, it does not necessarily mean that he or she is an evil or bad person.
Pity many people (from all sides) do not always adhere to this view and feel that any disagreement with them represents a fundamental attack on their dignity and worth as a human being. That, perhaps, says more about our particular history, or about their own insecurities and lack of self-respect, than about the views of the person they are disagreeing with.
Well written Professor.
You know what, Pierre!? I think you need to blog about how white people have steadfastly refused they responsibility in this ‘reasonable accommodation’. With all the magnanimity that Africans have displayed. Stop telling us about how two sides need to come together. The is one problem with this country, right now, and that it is white peoples insistence that transformation is the bearer of all evils. White people do this while trying to force everyone to forget about our past. Well, I am sorry. I for one am not going to be fooled into concepts that are a distraction from the realities on the ground.
Khosi, maybe you could find some other forum where to express your racist generalisations, your lack of courtessy & comprehension and your resentfull rants that represents the opinions of nobody?
Khosi, with respect, while you point to an important problem, you detract from your argument by making sweeping generalizations. I find it is better (and almost always more accurate) to talk about “some white people” or “some black people”, otherwise others will accuse you of racial generalizations which is surely at the heart of racial prejudice and hatred? One should really practice what one preaches, I find.
Pierre, it is not a mistake that I do not prefix ‘white people’ with the word ‘some’. I mean it exactly that way. That is exactly the way I see it, right now. I may see things differently 3, 6, 12 months down the line. But, as we speak, to my eyes, white people are really dragging this country to the brink. To show how callous white people are, laws needed to be passed for white people to share their privileges. And no one has ever asked the privileged to let go of their benefits. All what was said was ‘let us all share’. Even with those laws they continue to find ways to exploit and rob the system. And they fight transformation at every turn.
Now I did not use the prefix ‘all’ either. This is because I know that the are some white people who have a soul in their rib cage. The are white people who see blacks as equal countrymen worth of the same respect as any kind. White men and women committed to the building of an equal society. But, in my eyes, white people, in general turn a cold heart to Africans.
A really beautiful post, thanks Prof.
Succinctly, cuts to the heart of the power and meaning of the Constitution.
While the word empathy does not carry the kind of gravity the Constitution strives for in these matters, at heart, this is perhaps a key aspect of engaging in meaningful debate about difference.
The Gareth Prince Case comes to mind regarding the issue of reasonable accommodation, and the hard decisions that have to be made when adjudicating upon the prevailing dignity between two opposing parties.
Anyhow, thanks for keeping it real.
Khosi, I think Mzo said something in the previous discussion that would be very difficult to refute: we are not ready for reconciliation.
I think that for reconciliation to materialise, the various groups in South Africa would have to be willing to listen to each other and look at themselves. However, in order to listen and look in this way, people must be ready to do so. And in this country, judging by your sweeping condemnation of white people, many people are not ready.
I am not saying that you have no cause for anger. Even a glance at (a) our country’s history and (b) current societal conditions suggests otherwise very strongly. But despite the fact that I agree that black people, coloured people and Indian people have cause for anger and suspicion towards white people, I will say that your position is at least a part of the reason as to why meaningful attempts at reconciliation are, as I believe Mzo correctly made out, impossible for the time being. There are of course other reasons. And it is certainly fair to say that one such reason is that many white people contribute greatly to the problem. But with respect, the Professor is not such a white person. And it is surprising that you do not appreciate this given that you are a fairly regular contributor to this blog on which he has initiated many discussions about race relations, bigotry and so on. (I would just add that the Professor and I have disagreed often enough to rebut any notion that I would agree with him merely for the sake of doing so. I agree with him here because I think he has a point.)
I do not mean to make a controversial or provocative statement here – although I fear that it may very well be construed in that way. This is the statement: a white person may, for instance, say 50 unfavourably critical things about a black person. And each one of the criticisms may be spot on. The way to determine whether the white person has a point is to consider his reasons fairly. Many of the bloggers here (and Spuy ranks exceptionally highly among them) seem to disagree with views purely because the views are critical of black people and because they have (a) accurately understood the critical views and (b) offered cogent grounds that either refute or undermine those criticisms.
Pierre, I’ve heard white people say that one should not speak ill of the dead too. I sense the difference in this issue is that white people differentiate between the public and the private persona far more. To ask white people not to reflect upon the public actions of a person is surely to suppress their right to their cultural practice.
I prefer to follow Fanon in this matter to the silence of the masses: “Self-criticism has been much talked about of late, but few people realise that it is an African institution. Tradition demands quarrels should be settled in public. It is communal self-criticism. The more the intellectual imbibes the atmosphere of the people, the more completely he abandons the habits of calculation, of unwonted silence, of mental reservation and shakes off the spirit of concealment. And it is true that already at that level we can say everyone triumphs, and that it spreads its own light and its own reason.”
Can we say that the late Dr Tshabalala-Msimang took the words of this great African man to heart in how she dealt with the greatest health challenge the country faced?
Forgive me for not engaging with you like the potential brain surgeon that you portray yourself to be, but people who thinks others needs their approval suffers from a dilusion and you could get medication for that.
@ Khosi
@ Friend
Let me focus on you. I appeal that you abolish or a least tone down the insults when you engage upon debates in this blog. This is not to curtail your freedom of expression but to afford other blog-users their right to dignity. Hardly necessary to point out, as the Presidency has observed, such insults do not add value to one’s opinions but merely devalue same. We need a culture of tolerance and healthy debate as a nation especially when one considers our history of deep physical, emotional and psychological scars. South Africa, as a nation, probably needs more intellectual and healthy debates amongst its citizens than any other country in the world.
You must that we have never advocated that the late Dr. Manto be glorified, but we have asked that she be not vilified AFTER having passed on. This is especially so since the pain in her family and others of her death is still very fresh in their minds. The deceased has not even been interred yet, yet people are shouting in public vilifying her. This, according to our culture (hers and mine), is not permissible. She may have been Zulu and I may be Xhosa but that part of our culture enjoins us to refrain from speaking ill of her AFTER her passing on.
@Khosi: your statement as follows: white people are really dragging this country to the brink”.
I couldn’t disagree more, and yes I’m white. You won’t find many coloured or Indian citizens agreeing with you either. Here we have a regime which is breaking virtually all the laws, ethics and principles which a true Democracy and equal justice under the law calls for, and you make such a statement. Mind boggling my fellow poster, mind boggling.
I live and work in the coloured and black communities six days a week, and then they visit me on Sundays. I have many white friends as well, and what I see in them is their absolute concern for the poor, for our country, and the direction we are heading.
Until black people recognize that they are the problem for themselves, nothing will change, and many white’s attitudes will remain convinced that you, blacks, simply don’t know, care about others, or have the foggiest idea of what you are doing.
Manto is the perfect example. Whites around the world, knowing full well that HIV/Aids is a global problem (think international travel which spread it in the first place) and who have been raised to care about African poverty, tried everything to diminish the Aids crisis in Africa. Who held it back? Ask that question and be honest. Its symbolic and representative of all the problems in South Africa. Whites would like nothing better than that you (Blacks) get your act together and care about the country and all its citizens as a whole instead of your cars, booze and pocket money, which as tax payers they feel they are paying for. Meanwhile, we wait with baited breath. It’s not racism, it practical on the ground reality, including social reactions across the colour spectrum to blatant stupidity.
@Khosi again: Khosi, there are stupid whites as well, lots of them. In fact I think an alternative term for racism should be ‘stupid-ism’. If you want to insult, instead of calling someone a racist, call them stupid, because the differences which many people have about different cultures and races is that they who fall in some category, complaining about the idiocy, or bad done by’s, these people see and consider others stupid, meaning such people believe these others have no comprehension of the ramifications of their thoughts or actions.
Manto, more than most knew the suffering that accompanied Aids. Have you ever been in a death house where black TB-Aids sufferers are placed to die away from the family. Smelt the filth, seen the utter despair and lack of light. I have. They are all in the townships by the way, although certainly there have been improvements in the Western Cape since 2,000.
Perhaps the most generous thought one can have about Manto, is that she was stupid, rather than complicit. Stupidity is understandable, right? It’s everywhere.
Prof: Its Friday night. I guess most of your posters are always partying on Fridays and not posting, you too likely, so I’ll take a liberty with the venue you offer, as follows:
The word I don’t hear a lot in SA is ‘prejudice’. It has set me thinking.
Prejudice, meaning: to pre judge, generally based on culture, sex, orientation, religion, drinker or not drinker, educated or not, wealthy or not, etc and etc, and yes colour of skin. Its sort of last on my list. To pre-decide (you’ll know the Latin) about a person based on that perceived person’s supposed identity, and thus tainting the observer’s opinion, as in their assessment, judgment and subsequent decision. words, thoughts or action.
Once upon a time, I lived and worked with indigenous Canadian Indians on behalf of three levels of Government. It was at a time when Apartheid in Canada came to an end and Indians were allowed into the cities, towns and communities, allowed to drink in a bar, allowed to sell a horse or cow without the white Indian agent giving permission, allowed to travel without a pass book. Not that very long ago, actually.
I was sitting with my seven elders of the Saskatchewan Federation of Indians, an organization which in Canada is without equal, which produced a Senator and special judicial rights via Indian Courts, Indian education, Indian University classes, etc.
I used to gather with my elders every morning for a pipe ceremony. There were seven elders attached to the Federation complex, which was and is located in Saskatoon, Canada, where temps by the way reach -40 every winter.
One of the seven elders never ever said anything in all the years I knew him, just smiled. His ancient wife was the talker generally, a bubbler. He always just sat there and observed. He was known for being silent. One day a visiting militant Indian leader, justifiably so, (that’s another story) and very angry at whites, spoke up in the circle as the pipe was being prepared. “What is this moonias doing here”, he shouted. Normally, no one shouts in a pipe ceremony. By the way, white men in North America are called ‘moon-y-ass’ by Cree and Blood Indians, because when Indians were first exposed to white men they saw them shitting in the Veld, known there as the Prairies, and all they could see was a white ass. They would laugh at how easy a target was being presented, especially at night under the moon.
Well, this one elder who never spoke, calmly puffed on the pipe after invoking Grandfather and Grandmother, (God in His/Her two forms) and stated… in English…
“We are all of one blood, all brothers and sisters under the sun and the moon, all of us together walking upon the body of our mother. The sooner we accept this, the better”.
Then he acknowledged me, passed the pipe into the circle and the ceremony continued; he said nothing further, and neither did anyone else.
Khosi is right.
He is especially correct in not wasting his time on anything as distracting as a class analysis. As he acutely observes, “white people, in general turn a cold heart to Africans.”
If you do not believe him, stop late one evening at any intersection on Oxford Road, Rosebank (Jhb.) Both black and white drivers are to be seen behind the wheels of shiny new German sedans.
White drivers (cold hearted), will most often ignore the black street children dressed in rags, begging at the robots Yet black drivers, more often
than not, will open their doors and coax the shivering young urchins in. I have heard that they will take the kids to their plush homes in Sandown. There, they will give them a hot meal. Later, the lucky orphans are tucked into beds in spacious spare bedrooms of these warm-hearted black professionals.
White empty-chested people have such a lot to learn from the generosity of these black motorists!
Dworky, there is a time and a place….
This is not it!
@ AN Leigh
I just hate to miss the opportunity to applaud the unbounded generosity of the BEE elite. I bow my head daily to thank God that capitalism has not corroded the spirit of UBUNTU!
@ AN Leigh,
I have to admit that I am caught in two minds about your post dated December 19 at 6:54am. On the one hand, I agree that people should be mindful of the nature of the circumstances which obtain and the subject matter at issue when they communicate their views.
But on the other hand, it could be that a seemingly unseemly tone may, upon closer inspection, stand the best chance at relating the relevant message. In the last two discussions on this blog we have seen people either (a) duck very straightforward questions and then seek to justify their decisions to do so on outrageously contrived grounds or (b) fail to notice glaring instances of hypocrisy or indeed (c) fail to notice that their sentiments mirror very closely the ignorance of apartheid leaders. In situations such as these, parody, albeit a crude and inelegant species of communication which would be wholly out of place in many instances, may actually stand the most attractive chance at getting through.
Kewl. Pierre imposes self-censorship and leaves the field open to the Joel Netshitenzhes.
Have you read one word the last couple of days about Sis Manto’s conviction?
Is a debate not appropriate – considering the perennial, spiralling service delivery riots, that recently manifested as widespread xenophobic attacks, the breakdown in the country’s administration, the violence that is the result of frustration aggression and wide-spread generalised feelings of relative deprivation, the godless, shameless ANC’s ruthless, unrelenting exciting of expectations, the looting, the plundering of state coffers – to examine how the ANC vets the cadres it deploys to public office?
Perhaps it is just me, but appointing a polygamist to head a democracy in the year 2009 appears somewhat of an anachronism.
Appointing our friend Menzi as the country’s chief prosecutor…
In 1963, Martin Luther King jnr said:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
What is said that in Khosi’s household?
“I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character but by the color of their skin “?
It is very worrying to see the manner in which some white people including the professor and most bloggers in this blog don’t self reflect. It one thing comparing SA to countries such as France etc. The South African situation is quite different. Black South Africans in general have adapted to the ‘white culture’. For instance what kind of culture is practiced at the university that the professor lectures? What is the culture of corporate South Africa? Would the French allow an immigrant culture in their institutions? These are the questions we need to deliberate. Why is it, Prof that most black would find it easy to pronounce your name but very few white people can pronounce the deceased former ministers name Mantombazana? Most whites were born here and yet they can’t even pronounce an African name indigenous to this country. How many of you can honestly say you have visited a township and tried to understand how your fellow citizens on the other side live and relate to each other? It is expected that blacks must adopt their lives to suit the white world. It is important that people self reflect before making arguments about one thing or the other. There are more black people who feel the same as Khosi on this matter than there were 5years back. This is a worrying trend which will lead to confrontations in the near future.
Mikhail: “As he acutely observes, “white people, in general turn a cold heart to Africans.” “I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the content of their character but by the color of their skin “?
Mikhail, understanding your irony, however:
Bullshit, confusing, and not at all productive.
Witness all the NGO’s who are headed by whites, and who do much more than our regime leaches. Proof in the Pudding, I think is the quote.
Thomas, in the year 2009 how is the refusal of many black South Africans to modernize White South Africans’ fault?
That Constitution is the legal framework for a modus vivendi between Black and White in South Africa. It contains no obligation to be nice or right to be treated nicely. It means what it says – the obligations it imposes must be fulfilled. It is time the ANC stopped paying lip-service only to the Constitution, and stop the pretence that it means what godless, shameless ANC leaders say.
Mantombazana was an embarrasment to our country, a disgrace, and she should never have been a Minister.
There are countless deaths on her conscience, especially the innocent unborn.
Brett Nortje:
Your association of modernisation with tolerance and acceptance of other cultural and racial practices of the different races is astonishing. Your point unfortunately supports Khosi and my argument that you regard your cultural practices as superior and therefore modern to you. You seem to think that if we do not agree on cultural practices then our practices are not modern.
I really cannot think of many examples where I practice culture. I do observe practices daily that are viewed by the whole world as out of step with civilized society in the 21st century.
Most blatant, of course, the attitude of the ANC elite towards the AIDS pandemic and its gross dereliction of duty in addressing that pandemic. The ANC lacks the insight to realise this but it gave up whatever claim it had to the moral high ground – which like ones’ good name can only be lost once – with its grossly irresponsible, care-less attitude to what became a pandemic nowhere else, on no other continent. In the big people world where one is responsible for ones’ actions, in the year 2009, governments are booted out by electorates if there are scandals, mismanagement, failed audits.
Not in SA where more promises are made that will never be kept.
There are a whole host of examples.
We are talking about different things. You are using your hate for politicians and specifically ANC politicians as an argument to justify wrongs. It is one thing to criticise politicians, it another to justify prejudices based on their actions. I for one have never agreed with the former minister about the Aids pandemic. I never agreed with PW Botha on his views about black South Africans but very few black people went out of their way to demonise him in death. The same respect should be given to the passing of the former minister. It is one thing for the Prof to argue and debate about the wrongs we feel she had done on earth but to suggest that her death is welcome suggests that people were waiting and praying for her to die and happy that she is dead. This to the African black is inhumane. Are we now the judges of one’s sins on earth? Should we now celebrate the death of those we don’t agree with? Nothing makes me angrier than the death of hundreds of thousands of our people because of the position of the former minister and her President. But by celebrating her death how different am I to her. In our culture if you have nothing good to say about a recently deceased it is rather you not say anything. It doesn’t mean you agree with their actions but you recognise that during times of bereavement the family of the deceased have to be respected. They are the ones who are being destroyed by the comments and they were not party to any actions of the deceased.
Joel Netshitenzhe’s article was a very timely reminder that, to the ANC, there is no such thing as an objective reality or objective morality.
In the big people world one is judged by one’s actions. Moreover, Tshabalala-Msimang gave up many of her claims to privacy when she took her first tax$$$$. She was a public figure exercising public power as a part of the executive branch of government. Everything she ever did is subject to public scrutiny. If she could not stand up to public scrutiny, well, tough, the ANC did not do a very good job of vetting their public representative, now did they? If she is torn to pieces now it is a sad reflection on her party, its membership, policies and administration, which party would not govern anywhere else on this planet.
I remind you once again of Martin Luther King’s statement and contrast that with the veiled and not-so-veiled threats of the ANC cry-babies when they are actually judged on the contents of their characters.
What were PW Botha’s views on black South Africans? Would PW Botha have done nothing while six million South Africans became infected with HIV? I think not…. Many people accused the NP of crimes against humanity. Never heard them accused of genocide, which is the accusation against Thabo Mbeki and Tshabalala-Msimang. The fact of the matter is Thabo Mbeki re-racialised the Rainbow Nation with all his personal hang-ups and my people are a bunch of sissies who have responded to a fraction of the provocations. The ANC leadership and office-bearers have long ceased to pay even lip-service to the idea of the modus vivendi and the facade is almost gone, the previous mere lip-service to the rule of law and constitutionalism is increasingly ignored or even worse, laughed off. Now the clamp-down on freedom of expression starts afresh.
Tshabalala-Msimang has got off very lightly, and should have considered that her good name is the only thing she can take with her when choosing to be TM’s yes-man.
We all saw Sne’s views on the importance of bringing closure to the families of the quarter-million people murdered since 1994 by efficient, speedy prosecutions vis-a-vis the goal of transformation.
Hands up – anyone who thinks the ANC government and the party’s office-bearers would be delighted with a prosecuting authority that resolved 80% of dockets opened and had a conviction-rate of 90%?
Please!
This is all about accountability, which the ANC regards much like the devil does brimstone.
I know this is not what this current discussion is about (although I think it is related to it), but I want to know what the Prof and others think about the December 16 as a holiday; especially in light of the story in the following link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/world/africa/17safrica.html?_r=2
Methinks this holiday should be abolished because of its divisive nature.
Dumisani – Go to the Seminar room – this article was (and still is) open for discussion.
Good on the Sunday Times, as poor as it has become of late, for their article on Manto Tshabalala-Mismang, Sunday December20, 2009. Should we be angry? Hell yes! I’ve been angry since 2000.
Mannto Tshabalala-Mismang: Dire legacy haunts SA, by Chris Barron.
Says it all.
Thanks Anonymouse
This is what a health minister should be made of:
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article238162.ece
@ Thomas
Bro, you will never have a decent discussion with Brett unless the topic is about guns. I advise you to save your energy.
Bret Nortje says: “I really cannot think of many examples where I practice culture.” Ha, that is because your culture is the dominant culture so you see your culture as “just life”. Going to the Mall is part of your culture, watching rugby, shooting guns, drinking beer, telling certain kinds of jokes, decorating your house in a specific way, celebrating christmas in a specific way is all part of your culture. Your attitude does not help if one wants to live in harmony in a multicultural society as it assumes that your point of view is normal and other people are different, which could appear to those who do not share your experiences, culture and practices as arrogant in the extreme and blind to respect for the difference. Yet we are all different from each other. If we cannot recognize our own difference how can we respect the differences of others (always within the disciplining framework of the Constitution, of course).
Thomas says: “It is one thing for the Prof to argue and debate about the wrongs we feel she had done on earth but to suggest that her death is welcome suggests that people were waiting and praying for her to die and happy that she is dead.” I never suggested her death was welcome. Where on earth do you get that? All I did was select a snapshot of her quotes on HIV and publish them without comment in order to stick to the truth while not badmouthing the dead.
Scratch the sanctimonious façade of every bleeding-heart white liberal and you find a rabid racist. For evidence of the foregoing I refer to “Sirjay Jonson’s” comments of Friday, past:
“Witness all the NGO’s who are headed by whites, and who do much more than our regime leaches. Proof in the Pudding, I think is the quote.”
“Until black people recognize that they are the problem for themselves, nothing will change, and many white’s attitudes will remain convinced that you, blacks, simply don’t know, care about others, or have the foggiest idea of what you are doing.”
“… and who have been raised to care about African poverty, tried everything to diminish the Aids crisis in Africa. Who held it back? Whites would like nothing better than that you (Blacks) get your act together and care about the country and all its citizens as a whole instead of your cars, booze and pocket money, which as tax payers they feel they are paying for. Meanwhile, we wait with baited breath. ….”
Based on my personal experience, Sirjay is the archetypical white South African. Polite society considers him to be the good white, who has seen the errors of the past and is duly contrite; yet personally I would rather share a beer with Eugene Terreblanche. At least his honest about his racial views.
Sine says:
December 21, 2009 at 6:51 am
Bro, you will never have a decent discussion with Brett unless the topic is about guns. I advise you to save your energy.
———————————————————————————————————-
Hey Sne,
It’s symptomatic of a much broader consideration.
Pierre sort of touches it in his comment above “(y)our attitude does not help if one wants to live in harmony in a multicultural society as it assumes that your point of view is normal and other people are different, which could appear to those who do not share your experiences, culture and practices as arrogant in the extreme and blind to respect for the difference.”
As I see it, “there are some among us” (eish, couldn’t help that
) who hold the view that theirs is the point of departure against which everyone else should be referenced – an over riding and irrational sense of superiority.
It manifests not only in both what Brett had to say and the way he said it, but also in the several rather narrow viewed responses to Khosi’s comment December 18, 2009 at 10:55 am, which led to many attacks on his person rather than any kind of smart critique of his view.
Prof I am not good at english but this is a quote from your article: “Few recent events have highlighted the racial fault lines in South African society more starkly than the recent death of Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. While many South Africans (mostly white) have welcomed the death of the late Minister”
Can you please explain how the many have welcomed the death of the late minister.
@ Prof to Brett
Good post that you directed to Brett.
@ Prof to Thomas
On the snapshot of her quotes, I asked what criterion or criteria you used to determine which quotes to “select… and publish”?
@ Vuyo
Must say I was shell-shocked to read the posts by Sirjay Jonson. He always (mis)presented himself as this understanding (white) liberal who wants only the best for black people. I was seriously misled (reminds me of Celine Dion’s song, Misled).
On a more serious note, his comments bro betray his deeply held prejudices against black people in general not only the minority (as compared to the number in the country) of black people that he deals with.
I further agree with your last mentioned sentiment. I love people who hate honestly than those who pretend to love as the latter are by far the most dangerous type. Sirjay Jonson has unfortunately proved to be the latter.
@ Maggs
I fully concur bro.
@ Thomas on Prof
With respect bro, your question is rather lazy. Here are a few examples of the relevant individuals;
1. Herman Lategan: December 17, 2009 at 9:22 am
2. Sluiper: December 17, 2009 at 10:50 am
3. Leigh: December 17, 2009 at 12:22 pm (to an extent covert)
4. George Gildenhuys: December 17, 2009 at 14:54 pm
5. Sirjay Jonson: December 17, 2009 at 15:11 pm
6. Kanrokitoff: December 17, 2009 at 15:41 pm
7. Ewald: December 17, 2009 at 18:47 pm
8. Friend: December 18, 2009 at 9:15 am
I hope the above will be enough…
Let me then start by oppologising to anyone whom I had offended by being personal, fact is the subject in this discussion started with an actual event and then it didn’t take long for us as SA citizens of the internet culture to discuss black and white stuff. So the tone of the discussion was whether or not to keep quiet about some wrongs a a sign of respect for the dead and we all now know that it is against black culture to bad mouth dead people and therefore the answer from that perspective is Yes! Keep her shortcommings quiet cause she’s dead and then we have the perspectives of the whites who are allowed to make their opinions heard, but not without having them known that their 1.anchestors are responsible for apartheid 2. they have no hearts in their chests 3. racists are the category of people they belong to 4. racism is part of white people culture and there exists no cure 5. They will not find empoyment in SA so their opinions are influenced by that fact and therefore does not count as it stems from sour grapes and 6. white people do not take orphens from streetcorners and accomodate them at their mansions like their good hearted black counterparts.
Beautiful discussion people, this is me leaving for now, but if I come back here and have to swollow my own throwup, because you lot don’t know how to play nice then I will permanently resign from internet. Thank you
Because the question were manipulated and the debate reconstructed in the end to basically just ask: “are you, as a white happy that Manto’s liver rejected her and killed her from within?”
Pierre, Pierre, Pierre…
I have mentioned before that I do not watch rugby, (or cricket) nor do I drink much, nor do I have much patience with people who drink. Doubt if I have had 6 beers this year. If I was King, alcohol would be banned, along with sport on TV, which is the opiate of the masses (and a whole host of other things).
The truth.
Is its function to enable us to live in harmony in a multicultural society?
Does the godless, shameless ANC want you to stop speaking the truth because hearing it disrupts that comfort zone?
Do we allow others to massage our reality because the alternative is uncomfortable for them?
@ Brett
Your continuous use of ‘ANC’ in your posts is starting to become monotonous and meaningless. Regardless of how you feel about the ruling party, you need to be able to look beyond it. Maybe, just maybe, you’ll have a more balanced approach and become a better person instead of another government bashing cynic that you currently seem to be.
When you post here, you seem not to understand that you are part of the minority and the only thing that is keeping you where you are today regardless of the country’s history of exploitation of the majority by the minority is the ANC’s respect for the Constitution and the judiciary.
I hate to say this but it may be a matter of time before black professionals like Khosi, Vuyo, Mdu, Spuy, myself and others get tired of the attitude of people like yourself and realise that despite all the efforts that both the private sector and the government are putting in, this country will never be free of exploitation of the majority (now mostly black “non-professionals”) by the minority (now both black and white elites) and that the gap will continue to widen between the elites and the majority. It may be a matter of time before black professionals realise that they may be permitted to work for an (insufficient) income but the wealth of the country will be retained by the elites who are protected by section 25 of the Constitution that was negotiated by the elites amongst themselves. It may be a matter of time before the majority decides to do something about the subsisting state of affairs just like it decided to do something about the then Apartheid government with its guns, support from the West and economic might.
But then again… what do I know about South African politics…
Brett Nortje says:
December 21, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Which truth and reality do you refer to?
That there are things happening within the ANC that is not acceptable vs its many positives?
Or that turbid our society is a consequence of centuries of systemic and structural devastation which will take many generations of concerted effort to establish some semblance of normality?
Or of those who were beneficiaries of the iniquity who choose not to acknowledge their role and rewards but seek every which way to maintain the ill-gotten gains without lifting a finger to contribute to the reconstruction of our nation and in ingenious ways to maintain the social and economic disparities?
Or of those who pretend to be God loving but whose hearts and minds are filled with hatred and contempt?
Sine, I cannot tell you how sorry I am….
Can I ever properly express my gratitude that I am not subjected to all kinds of savagery, murdered in my bed, chased into the sea?
What iniquity? The iniquity of the black billionaires who charge the black masses the highest pay-as-you-go rates in the world?
What has happened to poverty indexes since 1994, while every white family you know pays more in tax then they take home to ensure a better life for all?
Sine says:
December 21, 2009 at 12:32 pm
While I am pissed off at much of what is happen in government and within the ANC, Brett represents in the main that which makes me want to ensure that the ANC with all its ills, will not lose a national election.
While his may be a crude and direct expression, my experience is that it is a reflection of a broader undercurrent which manifests much more euphemistically.
@ Friend
Bob Marley once said fools die for want of wisdom. I battled to understand what he meant, unil today, thanks for clarifying this dichotomy for me.
Essentially your argument is that you still or wont understand even if it is explained to you at the level of your comprehension (in a language comfortable for your malleable brain to grasp) just because the person making the point is racially not of your kin?
Wouldn’t it be easy for white compatriots to understand not necessarily expected of them to accept the argument presented by black compatriots that it is uncouth to speak ill of the dead? Because if you understand a little even though you might not accept you may find within your chest reason not to pursue and argue further about something that your fellow compatriots would disagree with you on. Rather than saying things that are taking our eye of the ball (in this case the post by the prof) we should attempt not to downplay other people’s values and beliefs. The question perhaps to be asked is what good or purpose might the vilification of the dead assist us in making sense of our collective arguments? Is this blog meant to teach us a thing or two about legal matters? Or is it slowly becoming a platform for hurling insults, racial bigotry and a vehicle to prove that some are more equal than others and thus more wiser than the rest?
Well, you dont need to say anything I already know the response. Its not because I am psychic or wiser, its just that you have become so predictable. That I no longer need to be a genius to understand where you coming from whenever you presnt an argument.
When I say you, I mean your kin as well. Take heart at least you’re better off than the prof, who has the added burden at times of having to justify himself just because he plays for the other team!!
@ Sine
“It may be a matter of time before black professionals realise that they may be permitted to work for an (insufficient) income ”
Sine is right.
I pity the black professional one sees in Sandton/Rosebank.
Many seem to be barely scraping by.
Shame.
@ Maggs
“While I am pissed off at much of what is happen in government and within the ANC, Brett represents in the main that which makes me want to ensure that the ANC with all its ills, will not lose a national election.”
Maggs, your sentiment is at one level understandable.
Unfortunately, it also echoes the sentiment of those here who supported Mugabe – no matter how bad he was for ordinary black Zimbabweans – simply because they got an emotional lift out of the fact that he angered “imperialist.”
@ Maggs
I wholeheartedly agree bro.
You cannot ignore that strong wave of people who think exactly like him. It is the same scary wave that makes one know that the ANC is indeed the best party in SA regardless. It is the same wave that is making the mistrust of a white man by a black man in SA not only understandable but also justifiable. It is the same wave that will spread panic among black professionals to the illiterate people on the street. It is the same wave which may fuel a widespread breakdown of racial relations in the country.
@ Michael Osborne to Maggs
To equate SA with Zimbabwe is to be ignorant of the differences that underlie both these countries. Just to give you a clue; what do you think caused Apartheid to last for such a long time despite international and local pressures? Is it because Apartheid SA had a strong army? I do not think so for a minute…
What we should be more concerned with is how long it will take the underpaid black professionals to join their illiterate and poor brothers and sisters in an attempt at the equal distribution of the country’s wealth?
It is interesting to note how often a white man is a stumbling block to a fair distribution of wealth in this country. I do not even want to mention the land redistribution…
Maggs, you are so intellectually dishonest….
“things happening within the ANC that is not acceptable vs its many positives”
If I am silent in the face of lies, it makes me a liar.
What “things happening within the ANC”? What are the “many positives”?
6 million people dying of AIDS because of the irresponsibility of the godless, shameless ANC v a tap that produces water when you open it, thousands in arrears for services and a bad credit record? A clinic down the road v a hospital built by the apartheid regime which now seems like a shining beacon in a sea of poverty (from afar – close-up, all the linen in the hospital has been stolen).
Nice trade-off, Maggs! Grow up, boy!
Sine, you might want to reflect that the ANC was the most ineffective liberation movement the world had ever seen (an indicator of its efficacy as a government?) Its strategy of putting women and children in front of the firing line, to sap the enemy’s morale, knocking them off the pedestal women and children are put on in civilized societies, might go a long way to explain the pandemic of violence against women, children and the aged we see today?
Michael Osborne says:
December 21, 2009 at 13:28 pm
Unfortunately, it also echoes the sentiment of those here who supported Mugabe – no matter how bad he was for ordinary black Zimbabweans – simply because they got an emotional lift out of the fact that he angered “imperialist.”
———————————————————————————————————-
Herein lies the rub.
Zimbabwe is a consequence of what happened as a direct result of the intransigence those who amassed the wealth of that country with regards to normalising that society and the desperation of those who were the victims.
It may well have parallels here.
What are those who have benefited from the iniquity doing to prevent the possible replication here?
The choice between an economic quagmire on the one hand and a perpetuation of that which is articulated crudely by Brett and eruditely by Drowky on the other is a no-brainer.
BTW I have yet to come across a Black Zimbabwean who disagrees with the philosophy underlying that county’s desire to fast track the restoration, even though most agree that it was improperly planned and executed.
Brett Nortje says:
December 21, 2009 at 14:43 pm
“Grow up, boy!”
Well, well, Michael Osborne – I rest my case!
Vuyo: thanks for your post acknowledging my comments, good thoughts bro, appreciated them, got you thinking, right.
Still, truth remains. Black rules, how well does it rule?
Ahh, Maggs, re-inventing Zimbabwean history now? Reports of famine are all a huge misunderstanding, the UK never stopped paying for land-redistribution because the funds were syphoned off to senior ZANU-PF members, Mugabe never started farm seizures (which all ended up in the hands of ZANU bigwigs) to punish white ZANU collaborators for stabbing him in the back by helping MDC convince the Zim electorate to vote NO in a referndum to make him the lawful dictator of Zimbabwe, Mugabe never stole two elections, senior SA silks have not written opinion that Mugabe is unlawfully the ruler of Zim, in terms of their electoral Act….
WHy do you not invent a more pleasant modern history of SA for us?
Oh, sorry, I forget, you have!
Sne, the Robbing Hood of SA! LOL! Delusions of loot?
Sne, despite your Malema-like reaction you will never make me doubt that a modus vivendi between Godfearing people of different races was possible in this country. The Constitution was the legal framework for that modus vivendi. My people are too timid to hold the ANC to it – your kind never really bought into the idea anyway.
People who just want to get on with the job of trying to live godly lives can still find each other. How pathetic that the ANC could only come up with one leader who could inspire people in that direction.
Sne, I know what it is to fight for my life while black men I have never spoken a cross word to or even seen before try to end it. I never gave up. So your threats do not shock me, intimidate me, scare me. They sadden me.
If this country does explode as appears increasingly more likely given the service delivery riots, the general dissatisfaction, the frustration aggression, the feelings of relative deprivation, the sky-high expectations, all of which you are an example, who will be to blame, Maggs? Some people will buy your dishonest excuses I suppose. ‘Taking responsibility’ being oxymoronic with ‘ANC’.
That is why it is important that we get the looting, the excesses of those close to the top ANC leaders, the gross mismanagement and waste which Maggs lables as “things happening within the ANC that is not acceptable vs its many positives” into the record now.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Wow, the level of debate on this site has gone down a notch or two. As has race relations it seems.
PdV wrote:
> In a diverse country in which people differ sharply on cultural
> beliefs and practices, it seems to me we will all be better
> off if we try to understand and respect such differences where
> it seems reasonably possible to do so. If one feels that it
> is not, one should be able to have an honest debate about it
> and should be able to justify why – in a particular case -
> respect for the cultural beliefs and practices of another is
> impossible if one is to hold on to one’s own dignity and one’s
> commitment about freedom and equality.
Separation aka “APARTness”: emigrate from Africa is a short term solution ?
I was listening to BBC’s report of this arab who while visiting Mecca for his Haj,
was arrested and charged with ‘practicing scorcery’ which calls for a death penalty.
Someone had reported that he’d once done some fortune-telling TV-shows in Lebanon.
—————–> Dumisani Mkhize wrote:
> I know this is not what this current discussion is about
> (although I think it is related to it), but I want to know what
> the Prof and others think about the December 16 as a holiday;
> especially in light of the story in the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/world/africa/17safrica.html?_r=2
> Methinks this holiday should be abolished because of its divisive nature.
—–
Yes, what quality journalism, compared to the local crap. Of course it WILL be
abolished soon, once more settlers have left. They’re not going to be able to
hold-up-their-flag like international-jewery does.
—> PS. only sissies use spell-check and deodorant.
Thomas, to answer your question:
Q. Would the French allow an immigrant culture in their institutions?
A. Yes. The French lunch (12h00 to 14h00 daily) is an institution which was ingrained in the kids from time immemorial but now Mc Donald’s fast food outlets litter French country towns.
(Due to Mc Donald’s iinsidious marketing the kids seem to prefer it to French cuisine.)
Thomas, to answer your question:
Q. Would the French allow an immigrant culture in their institutions?
A. Yes. The French lunch (12h00 to 14h00 daily) is what is ingrained in the kids but now Mc Donald’s fast food outlets litter French country towns.
(Due to Mc Donald’s iinsidious marketing the kids prefer it to French cuisine.)
Q. Can you please explain how the many have welcomed the death of the late minister.
A. The late Minister didn’t uphold her Oath of Office. (www.doj.gov.za/legislation/constitution/20081210_cn_s2.pdf)
The excuse has been made since her death that she merely carried out ANC policies and is therefore not personally liable for her conduct as Minister of Health. (The Constitution doesn’t make a poliical party take an Oath of Office but an individual.)
Evita Bezuidenhout pointed out once, in a letter to the Cape Times, that if the AIDS deaths trend continued that her (Evita’s) old National Party may soon be back in power as the ANC would have allowed most of its electorate to die like flies.
Thomas, to answer your question:
Q. Can you please explain how the many have welcomed the death of the late minister.
A. The late Minister didn’t uphold her Oath of Office. (www.doj.gov.za/legislation/constitution/20081210_cn_s2.pdf)
The excuse has been made since her death that she merely carried out ANC policies and is therefore not personally liable for her conduct as Minister of Health. (The Constitution doesn’t make a poliical party take an Oath of Office but an individual.)
Evita Bezuidenhout pointed out once, in a letter to the Cape Times, that if the AIDS deaths trend continued that her (Evita’s) old National Party may soon be back in power as the ANC would have allowed most of its electorate to die like flies.
Sine says:
December 21, 2009 at 6:51 am
@ Thomas
“Bro, you will never have a decent discussion with Brett unless the topic is about guns. I advise you to save your energy.”
Damn, I should have taken my advice here…
Sine says:
December 22, 2009 at 7:10 am
Ja Kameraad, we have reached rock bottom here. From the pale corner we hear shouts that “the blacks” are useless and are breaking the country, and from the other side we have salivating about a possible genocide of “the whites”.
And Prof, your cherrypicking of the worst of Manto quotes and then holding your hands up in innocence is just plain disingeneous, childish and not worthy of your usual standards.
Happy Christmas everone!
@ Peter
“And Prof, your cherry picking of the worst of Manto quotes and then holding your hands up in innocence is just plain disingenuous, childish and not worthy of your usual standards.”
Prof reminds me of Judas Iscariot…
Peter and Sine, there we go again with the personal insults, and so close before Christmas! Tough luck if you did not like my response to the death of the Minister. It was my version of reasonable accommodating BOTH the truth (which I alluded to by using the minister’s OWN WORDS) AND respect for the family of the deceased. In Stalin’s Russia people were airbrushed out of pictures once they fell out of favor. Pretending on the death of someone that that person was a hero to all when she was something far more sinister and dangerous contains a similar Stalinist impulse. How can we learn from the past if we pretend it never happened? I chose not to insult the late MInister once dead while honoring the hundreds of thousands of people who died needlessly of HIV related illnesses by reminding readers of the truth as represented by the Minister’s own words. I did not make up the quotes. I did not embellish them. I did not comment on them. You may disagree with my compromise, but hurling insults is not really taking the matter any further. Once again, I suspect you are abusing a cultural practice in order to try and get away from the truth of the matter and to stop any discussion of a very dark time in our history and to try and stop people from remembering the actions of a deeply flawed human being. This seems deeply anti-democratic to me. Surely one can BOTH keep to the truth AND respect the feelings of a deceased family? That is what I tried to do but you do not like it because you do not like the truth as represented by the Minister’s OWN WORDS. But rewriting history will never bring back the hundreds of thousands of people who died needlessly. Not in your culture, not in my culture not in a million years. That is the real tragedy you do not want to face up to. Does this make you complicit in all the deaths? I leave that for others to decide.
@ Prof
I did not insult you but merely opined that the quoted words from PETER (not Sine) considered with your conduct (both an act and an omission) to quote certain of the deceased’s words whilst leaving most thereof out of your article reminds me of Judas Iscariot.
I find it hypocritical that you have managed to conclude that I was insulting you thereat despite your failure to realise that in quoting certain words whilst leaving some from the late Minister, you have set her up for attack by the people on this blog, many of whom are quoted in Sine: December 21, 2009 at 10:16 am. Using your logic, you were complicit in the insults that were hurled at the late Minister.
I also find it startling that you would comment on Christmas in the manner that you have considering that you do not believe in God at all. Maybe it was an attempt at emotional blackmail.
There is a difference between pretending that someone was a heroine and simply focusing on the good that the person did during her time on Earth. In fact, it is more like what you have done in your article, i.e. quoting only her negative words or words which you expected to solicit insults and abuse form the bloggers. Your question on pretending that the past did not happen is out of touch with reality of our culture which was acutely expressed by (Khosi: December 18, 2009 at 5:44 am) and myself (Sine: December 21, 2009 at 9:39 am in response to you and Sine: December 22, 2009 at 7:03 am in response to Michael Osborne) under the previous trend.
You may have chosen not to expressly insult the late Minister but (using your logic and also supporting the opinion of Khosi in this regard) you surely were complicit in her being insulted. On abusing my cultural practice, I refer you to my posts in the above para which you seem to have conveniently forgotten to refer to.
This may seem anti-democratic to you but I would greatly appreciate it if you could demonstrate, just like I did (in the posts referred to above), why you hold such a view.
Lastly, you are doing to me the same thing that you did to the late Minister. Pointing the bloggers in a certain direction and then “leaving them to decide” thereon; classical “I come here to bury Caesar but not to praise him.” The only difference between what you are doing to me and what you did to the late Minister is that I am here to defend myself and my position whilst she’s not. Moreover, my family is not mourning and culturally required to keep the peace to show respect unlike in the case of the late Minister.
Sine, I see irony is not your strong point, hence your remarks on my Christmas comment.
In your post, logic also takes a back seat, hence the argument about not insulting me. We both know that your answer is not logically sustainable on that score, but it is really not important so I will not waste time pointing out the absurdity of your argument. Who cares about being insulted. I find its no big deal as long as one wins the argument on the merits.
Your argument that I am complicit in vilifying the late minister is intriguing. If one follows your thought pattern, I am also complicit in providing a platform for a strong defense of the cultural practice of not speaking ill of the dead. I plead guilty to both counts and proudly so. Democracy is about debate and an exchange of ideas which this blog and the posts under discussion in particular provides. Or do you only want your own views aired?
By glossing over the bad and focusing on the good one rewrites history. One condones lying about someone on the basis of a cultural practice that is in any event not always honored and definitely not honored by all within the culture (see the editor of the Sunday Times column on Sunday). Its like focusing on how Hitler loved animals and not mentioning that he caused the death of 6 million Jews – it distorts history and condones dishonesty and (in Hitler’s case) in effect mass murder.
This is bad for democracy because in a democracy public officials and the policies they implemented should be part of the democratic debate. If we want to decide who to vote for, we must be able to discuss what the leaders of the various parties have done and said in order to make up our minds about them. If we followed your example, in 1994 we would not have been able to say: well, I am not going to vote for the National Party because Verwoerd and many of the NP leaders were racist bigots and that impulse still lives on in the NP. We would have had to smile and say, but Verwoerd was so kind to his grandchildren so by all means vote for the NP, these guys love their children!
Our fundamental disagreement is that I am arguing for a reasonable accommodation between a cultural practice and the dictates of democracy and the truth, while you want to use a particular cultural practice (not adhered to by everyone within the culture) for personal political gain in order to avoid the truth and prevent accountability for past wrongs. Your position therefore seems to clash with the requirements of open and accountable government as demanded by the Constitution. In our Constitutional democracy in such a case the Constitution trumps the cultural practices and that practice should be developed to bring it in line with the Constitution. No cultural practice can demand immunity from the dictates of the Constitution – otherwise sexism, homophobia and many other ills would be insulated from any criticism or attack on the basis that it forms part of someone’s cultural beliefs. Reasonable people should be able to debate these issues without hiding behind certain practices to avoid accountability for wrongdoing. Without accountability there is no democracy.
Pierre – I don’t see any material difference between hanging up all her denialist quotations and directly calling her responsible for thousands of uneccesary deaths. It is disingeneous to insist that you have “respected” her in death as is demanded by some commenters on this board – perhaps calling you “childish” was going too far.
In any event, I do believe that her denialism was responsible for many thousands of uneccesary deaths, but I won’t hammer on about this so as not to offend the sensitive souls on this bored. I am sure she had many good qualities and will be sorely missed by her family and friends.
I am interested in why her funeral is such a huge affair with live tv coverage etc – I don’t recall that other ANC bigshots and cabinet members got the same fanfare eg Dullar Omar? Am I wrong about this?
@ Sine & Peter are right.
Pierre, it was very naughty of you to take Cmd MSM’s statements out of context.
(After all, a text without a context is a pretext.)
Why did you not post, for the sake of balance, the many, many wise things she also said?
Dworky, Pierre also has the right to sit back and relax a bit this Christmas!
Now you want to make him hunt down something wise the good doctoir said. Waar nogal? Sies man!
Sne, do I need to quote Martin Luther King jnr at you again?
Why this resistance to being judged on the contents of ones’ character? Now, we have to judge Tshabalala-Msimang on aspects of her blackness? Her ‘black experience’?
Hey Dworky.
What do you think of this?
“Six suspects were arrested, one of whom was killed and two others wounded. The suspects will appear in court soon”.
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1099235 – Mary Papayya
Sort of like the nursery rhyme “Mary, Mary quite contrary. What????”
Everyone say after me:
If I need someone’s permission to say it, freedom of speech is not a right!
If I need someone’s permission to blog it, freedom of expression is not a right!
If I need someone’s permission to buy it, property-ownership is not a right!
Brett Nortje is right.
This nonsense about “limitation” of rights in s. 36 of the Constitution has to go!
All rights are absolute; otherwise they are not rights.
If rights come into conflict, that can be settled with an adjudicated coin-toss!
Thanks.
Et tu, Dworky?
Sophistry? Apples and oranges? You strike at the heart of the whole rights debate. What is a right and when is a right a right?
I believe the limitations clause is capable of interpretation that goes way to far in limiting rights. Another built-in cheat that allows the godless, shameless ANC to treat the Bill of Rights as a wish-list not the Supreme Law of the country.
That said, there is a vast difference between the limitations clause and a rights culture that is so weak that the acceptance is generalised that fundamental rights are subject to the sufferance or the consent or permission of the ruling elite, the executive, or those who fondly imagine they have pull with both.
My favourite definition of fascism is that is the use of public power for private, personal ends.
I’m telling you that there is very little distinction left between fascism and the granting, permission, sufferance and consent to practice fundamental rights by the ruling elite, the executive, or those who fondly imagine they have pull with both.
Glad you’re bored. Me too.
@ Brett Nortje
“My favourite definition of fascism is that is the use of public power for private, personal ends.”
Thanks, Brett. I am going to make a note of this very useful definition.
I especially admire the specificity of this definition, and the way it assists in drawing a clear line between fascism and other political ideologies.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
December 27, 2009 at 23:05 pm
Hey Dworky – according to your newly acquired definition would Warren Buffet be regarded as a facist?
No – I think of Buffet more as a Smorgasborgian.
More seriously, though. it has been increasingly clear that Brett is an expert in idelological taxonomy.
We can all learn a lot from him.
Indeed!
I could teach the gun-prohibitionists a lot, Dworky.
Always welcome a fan or two, too.
Do you see though that rights and permission/official consent are oxymoronic?
It seems as if we are only loosing the good politicians such as Modise, Mhlaba, Manto, Botha who seved us well. Is the Almighty punishing us by ignoring the bad ones and ensuring that we continue to be subjected to their rule?
I hope people like Mandela will outlive this period of denial and when their time come we will be at liberty to tell the truth about them, mostly the good but also the regrets. Long live Madiba!!!
Peter said: …so as not to offend the sensitive souls on this “bored”
Classic!
Why is everyone hating each other right now?
Mpho asks why everyone is hating each other right now. Let me kick off by saying that I think this question is a pretty fair one – although it may just deserve mention that chalking up the tension here as hatred is, as regards most instances, perhaps a touch overblown. That is, there does seem to be a deal of animosity here and if it is fair to say that trying to reduce the tension here is an attractive goal, then we would do well to ascertain the causal factors that have given rise thereto.
I reckon that one of the principal causes of this relative tension is that many bloggers do not suspend their loyalties when considering views which run contrary to theirs. That is, it seems to me that one can distinguish between two separate but related objects: the first of which is to defend one’s camp. The second object is to fairly consider positions that contradict one’s own – which obviously necessitates accurately construing those contrary stances and not dismissing them simply because they are contrary. As regards these objects, the regularity at which the former trumps the latter is, in my view, very alarming. And moreover, I think that this phenomenon (which is a fixture not only in the narrow context of this blog but in our society in general) is one of the chief social problems facing our country.
@ Mpho and Leigh,
For the record, I don’t hate anyone.
Rather the opposite – I enjoy the diversity of views.
Maggs, in case you are interested, I for one have never thought that you hate anyone (at least not anyone on this blog). Indeed I think the description of differences of opinion on this blog as ‘hatred’ is too strong for the most part – although I certainly think it fair to say that there is a measure of animosity here.
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=90634
Another good politician who served us well.
Only the good ones are dying.
Which Modise do you mean? The Coega oligarch?
Why did Louw not do more to hold the ANC to their commitment to surrender their arms caches, given the extreme lengths the godless, shameless ANC is going to now to terrorise elderly white South Africans into handing in their licensed firearms?
According to Maritz Spaarwater the ANC did not surrender one arms cache!
So, anyone going to bring up the 5th wife?
What is quaint, when Sipho your gardener does it, is an anachronism, an embarrassment when our country’s first citizen does it, I say!
(BTW, I’m a huge ‘Big Love’ fan…)