Constitutional Hill

Traditional leaders caught in a colonial time warp

Traditional leaders were the big losers during the constitutional negotiations that produced our world class Constitution – and rightly so. Most traditional leaders willingly collaborated with (and was co-opted by) the apartheid regime, playing an important (and, for them, often lucrative) role in the administration of the pass law system. This history detracts from claims made by some traditional leaders and their supporters that traditional leaders are the true custodians of African culture and tradition and that they speak on behalf of the vast majority of South Africans.

Given the unsavoury entanglement of most traditional leaders with the apartheid regime and given the fact that most traditional leaders are not completely supportive of democratic rule and are enthusiastic supporters of discrimination on the basis of sex, gender and sexual orientation, arguments by traditional leaders that their unique powers should be entrenched in the Constitution and that their interests and beliefs (corrupted by the process of colonialism and by apartheid ideology) should trump those of other South Africans, were roundly rejected by the drafters of the 1996 Constitution.

But over the past few years – as the ANC turned sharply to the right under President Jacob Zuma – traditional leaders have made a comeback. Despite losing the argument at the democratically elected Constitutional Assembly back in 1995, they have not stopped agitating for a return to the days when it was perfectly legal to discriminate against women and gay men and lesbians and when they wielded power (in those days, on behalf of the apartheid state) over big sections of the South African population. It therefore does not come as a surprise that the Congress of Traditional Leaders (Contralesa) yesterday again urged President Jacob Zuma to appoint traditional leaders to his cabinet and then voiced its long-held opposition to same-sex marriages. People attracted to partners of the same sex were urged to consult traditional healers, diviners, family and community elders “to find out what is wrong with them”.

It is unclear whether members of Contralesa will follow their own advice and will also approach traditional healers to find out what is wrong with them and why they harbour such an irrational fear and hatred of gay men and lesbians. Personally I blame the white missionaries for the fragile state of mind of many traditional leaders. After all, it was the missionaries who imposed a version of their colonial morality on large sections of African society. This colonial morality included the notion that who one has sex with must say something fundamental about one’s moral character and must mark one as a distinct person – either as a heterosexual or a homosexual, as either pure and monogamous or lustful and depraved.

Before the missionaries corrupted us with this essentially ridiculous notion that who we have sex with says something important about who we are and whether we are good or bad people, concepts such as homosexuality and heterosexuality were not known to us. Yes, people had sex with members of the same sex or the opposite sex, but we did not call those people gay, lesbian or heterosexual. We just called them human beings. It was only once the missionaries convinced us to classify people on the basis of their sexual desires and actions that homophobia could blossom into the deadly disease it is today.

Before the arrival of the missionaries, some communities might have censured certain kinds of sexual behaviour, but such censure attached to sexual acts and not to whole groups of people simplistically reduced to the sexual acts they engaged in. The opposition of traditional leaders to same-sex marriage can therefore not be divorced from the facts that colonial beliefs and habits have irrevocably changed the way we think and live on the continent. It is sad that many traditional leaders are so steeped in colonial culture (a bit like fishes swimming in the sea who are not able to realise that they are in water) that they would find it difficult to recognise that their own homophobia is largely the product of colonialism.

Interestingly, this antagonism towards relationships that do not conform to the colonially-imposed idea about marriage as being between one man and one women to the exclusion of all others, do not extend to polygamy, which – not surprisingly – the men of Contralesa fully support. Picking and choosing between the many prejudices passed on to us by the white colonists and selecting to embrace only those prejudices that help to prop up their patriarchal power and rule, traditional leaders may have slightly less legitimacy and a less valid argument than they might imagine.

Our Constitution is aimed at addressing the effects of colonialism and apartheid and to protect everyone from the prejudices and hatred that formed such an integral part of colonial life in South Africa. That is why section 9 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination on any ground, including on the basis of race, sex, gender and sexual orientation. That is also why section 30 and 31 of the Constitution explicitly subordinate the enjoyment of cultural rights to the other rights in the Bill of Rights. Any cultural belief or practice that discriminates against somebody else on the basis of race, sex, gender or sexual orientation is therefore unconstitutional as the right to equality trumps the right to culture and tradition (even if that tradition was subverted by colonialism).

Similarly, section 211 of the Constitution states that although the institution, status and role of traditional leadership are recognised, such recognition is subject to the rest of the Constitution – including the right to equality and the provisions in our Constitution that entrench democratic rule. This provision thus essentially relegates traditional leadership to the symbolic realm. The constitutional position of traditional leaders in South Africa is therefore not that different from the constitutional position of Queen Elizabeth: good for some gossip and for colourful depictions on tourist postcards, but essentially powerless. That is why traditional leaders cannot rightfully demand any rights for themselves that would be in conflict with the democratic nature of our system of government or that would effectively discriminate against women or gay men and lesbians. It would be like old Lizzy demanding a seat in David Cameron’s cabinet.

These provisions of the Constitution that relegate traditional leadership to the symbolic realm reflect the ideology and principles of the ANC at the time when negotiations for a new Constitution took place. People like Govan Mbeki wrote extensively on how the traditional chieftanship was reshaped to serve the apartheid project, while the women’s movement actively organised during the constitutional negotiations in order to defeat the conservative forces represented by the traditional leaders.

It is now difficult to remember that there was a time, not so long ago, when progressive ideas were dominant in the ANC. Back then, the ANC was the party that opposed patriarchy in all its manifestations and took a principled stand against discrimination of all types. It was a party that believed in the importance of redistributing wealth to the many previously oppressed citizens of our country – and not only to the few politically connected looters and tenderpreneurs and those living at a certain R250 million compound at Nkandla.

It was during that time that the ANC and its leaders acted as a midwife to our modern Constitution. It was a time before people like Cyril Ramaphosa realised they could use their political connections to get appointed to lucrative positions on the Boards of companies that exploit workers and often treat them like only half human beings.

Back in 1995 when the new Constitution was being negotiated by the democratically elected Constitutional Assembly, the ANC’s status as governing party had not yet provided its members with widespread access to power and money. That access to power and money corrupted many of its existing members, drove many other principled individuals away and attracted a good number of new members who never joined the struggle when it was dangerous to do so, but flooded the party once it became clear that membership could bring untold material reward.

Whether the ANC of today would agree with the progressive stance taken by the ANC of 1995 against the exercise of undemocratic power by traditional leaders and against the potential discriminatory effects of some (but not all) customary (and colonially imposed) beliefs and practices of traditional leaders, is an open question.

Lucky for those of us who believe in progressive values, these provisions are entrenched in the Constitution and cannot be amended by the ANC because it will probably never again achieve a two-thirds majority of votes necessary to do so unilaterally. Meanwhile we can only hope that the traditional leaders will awake from their colonially imposed slumber and will realise that their opposition to same-sex marriage demonstrate an embarrassing inability to rid themselves of the remnants of the colonial prejudices forced upon all South Africa before the advent of democracy.

  • Vuyo

    Apparently the missionaries invented the “missionary” position!

  • Pierre De Vos

    LOL

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Nostradamus (aka PdV) : “[The ANC] will probably never again achieve a two-thirds majority of votes”.

    http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2012/12/06/ifp-snatches-nkandla-from-anc-in-by-election

  • Mike

    How can you have voters rights in a tribal area counting for the rest of the country.It is either one man one vote and property ownership for all south africans or those areas that fall under tribal trusts being excluded from the voting.

  • Zoo Keeper

    Good post one the whole Prof

    Ironically, the claim to being a custodian traditions and Apartheid aparachik makes sense.

    The Apartheid regime, for all its faults, spent a great deal on preserving African cultures precisely to encourage separate development!

    For me, the problem I have with the traditional leadership is that it is an anathema in a democracy. No matter what country it is, traditional leadership has no place in a democracy. The democracies which have preserved some, like the UK, have reduced their monarchies to figure-heads with no real political authority.

    As for paying for the households of kings – aaaaargh!!

  • Cicero Langa

    Agreed.

    Excpt that you try and show that Africa was actually not such a bad place for homosexuals prior to the missionaries arrival.

    I’m do not know the facts. I wonder if anyone really does. But I doubt your assertion that
    “[b]efore the arrival of the missionaries, some communities might have censured certain kinds of sexual behaviour, but such censure attached to sexual acts and not to whole groups of people simplistically reduced to the sexual acts they engaged in.”

    Where do you get this from?

    What does it mean?

    Please explain.

  • Zoo Keeper

    Mike

    Now that is an interesting point! If you live in a tribal area, by implication you will be ruled by the traditional authorities. Ergo, you cannot vote in an election for a political party, because you are confined to life under a traditional authority.

    How bad is that?

  • Cicero Langa

    What further worries me, is the fact that it is somehow argued that to be strictly anti-gay is a doctrine that was brought to Africa by the missionaries. And that this is bad.

    And it is argued that the Tribula authorities are anti-democratic. And that this is bad. But where does the notion of democracy come from?

    Is it not from the same place the Missionaries come from?

    The point: the Tribal leaders are anti-gay and anti-democracy. Both concepts are foreing to them. And their stance has nothing to do with the missionaries or any other person coming to Africa.

  • Mike

    That why King Goodwill jumped ship to the ANC because he knew which side his bread was buttered.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Nkosinathi

    Many of the cultural systems that are in place were effected for practical reasons.

    The patriarchy is a product of pre colonial inter clan wars, when men would go to war and the women were child rearers, this instilled a mentality of supremacy that was re inforced by colonization.

    However, times have indeed changed and such is no longer the case. Traditional leaders were in simple terms, “head of the armies” in those times, it was strictly limited to men as women could not go to war, thus primogenature existed also. We are now at a dispensation where this is no longer relevant, but due to custom, these “doctrines of practice” are still applied.

    The constitutional era has seen changes to these, one of the most relevant cases being the Bhe case, where primogenature was deemed unconstitutional. In another decided case, the citation escapes my memory, it was held that a woman may be a traditional leader.

    Traditional leaders do infact play an imperative role in our rural communities, as they are “arbitrators” in their capacity and hold a reconcilliatory mindset to dispute resolution. Access to justice is already an impediment in our society, due to deficiencies in education and finance among other things. It would therefore be further detrimental should they be stripped of such roles.

    However, we are now in a dispensation that recognizes human rights, of which, if I may so say, the right to equality and dignity are at the pinacle. Traditional leaders as you correctly state have not progressed their mindsets to this dispensation.

    It is therefore the duty of academics and those interested to educate and advance the mindsets of our traditional leaders. A courteous approach would prove the better option. Interested parties ought to engage traditional leaders in attempts to advance mindsets by alluding to, inter alia, the increased number of woman headed households, which function normally.

    As alluded to earlier, some practises were largely for practical reasons, polygamy was perpetuated by death of men at war. In those times, there was a high dependancy on the man, so should the man have died at war, his family would be left destitute, it would thus be a common occurance that the brother or another relative of the Patrilineage would assume the deceaseds position. As probably obvious, there were also bachelors that died at war, resulting in disproportion, it thus at the time seemed logical for a man to take more than one wife, procreate, increasing the clan. This no longer holds ground, however, customs, unlike common law, are not abrogated by disuse, and a distict minority still practice polygammy. It was not merely a system of pick and choose as you had alluded to.

    It is of utmost importance, that one upholds the provisions in the constitution when one relates to another, this is a bilateral obligation on us all. A Courteous yet firm approach is preferable.

  • Pierre De Vos

    Great:

    DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE CONDEMNS HATE CRIMES AGAINST GAY, LESBIAN, BI-SEXUAL, TRANSGENDER AND INTER-SEX PEOPLE

    6 December 2012

    Johannesburg. The Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development reiterated government’s commitment to fight all forms of hate crimes and gender based violence, including violence against, Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender and Inter-sex (LGBTI) people.

    “We are committed to fighting all forms of violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We condemn hate crimes, including so-called “corrective rape” in the strongest terms.”

    Referring to a judgment delivered by the late former Chief Justice Arthur Chaskalson in the case of S v Makwanyane that declared the death penalty unconstitutional:

    “The rights to life and dignity are the most important of all human rights, and the source of all other personal rights in Chapter Three. By committing ourselves to a society founded on the recognition of human rights we are required to value these two rights above all others.”

    Nel said, “Gender based violence and hate crimes are a direct assault on both the right to life and human dignity and all of us have a duty to combat them.”

    He was speaking on accessibility of justice to victims of sexual offenses and the impact of specialized courts as part of a panel discussion on “Gender Based Violence and HIV: Finding Solutions Together” hosted by the Department for Women, Children and People with Disabilities and UNAIDS.

    Referring to baseline research conducted by the task team against hate crimes against LGBTI people established by Justice Minister, Jeff Radebe, he said:

    “The research report revealed that people of South Africa widely condemn any kind of violence perpetrated against LGBTI persons. Although many respondents showed a degree of tolerance, a majority of them were still reluctant to accept homosexual relationships for various perceptions and beliefs. This response therefore supported the dire need for more basic public education to address many questions that seemingly hinder the acceptance of the LGBTI persons.”

    Nel said that, “The Department continues to sensitize the court personnel of the dynamics involved when dealing with LGBTI cases. These sessions are mainly aimed at dismantling stereotypes and mindsets that infringe the constitutional rights of the LGBTI persons as they engage with the court system.”

    Recently, the Department participated for the second time in the annual Gay Pride March in Johannesburg with an information stall and a statement by Deputy Minister Nel.

    Speaking on the need for courts dedicated to hearing cases involving sexual offenses Deputy Minister Nel said:

    “There is a need to conduct an investigation to determine how other dedicated service models, such as the Thuthuzela Care Centres could significantly strengthen the functioning of these courts. A legal framework is required to define and guide the inter-sectoral coordination of these services and their resources to establish a victim-centred criminal justice system that is quick, effective and responsive to the special needs of the victim of sexual offenses.”

    Other members of the panel were Deputy Minister of Women, Children and People with Disabilities, Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu, Patrick Shai of Brothers for Life, Phumeza Mafani of the NPA and Mapaseka Letsike , deputy chairperson of the South African National Aids Council (SANAC).

    Enquiries:
    Chester Mpane
    Media and Liaison Officer
    Office of the Deputy Minister
    Cell: 082 370 9532
    Email: pmpane@justice.gov.za
    2

  • Mike

    @Nkosinathi

    that why Verwoed set up the apartheid state because in 2012 not much has changed in the rural areas since then.
    What is important is just how many times a year did they go to war and who did they go to war with before the whites came on the scene.

  • Gwebecimele

    Will this appointment also follow the “Simelane” route???

    http://www.techcentral.co.za/pule-must-act-on-icasa-councillor-da/36814/

  • Nkosinathi

    @Mike,
    I think I understand what you trying to say, but please clarify for me.

  • Chris (Not the right wing guy)

    Dec 6th, 2012
    by Pierre De Vos

    :Personally I blame the white missionaries for the fragile state of mind of many traditional leaders. After all, it was the missionaries who imposed a version of their colonial morality on large sections of African society.”

    Prof De Vos, where did you get this info? As far as I know most missionaries were gay and had a good time with the locals!

  • Chris (Not the right wing guy)

    Dec 6th, 2012
    by Pierre De Vos

    OK the :P was a typo. Really I promise. It should have been “P

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years!

    Chris (Not the right wing guy)
    December 6, 2012 at 19:32 pm

    Hey Right-wing-guy

    “As far as I know most missionaries were gay and had a good time with the locals!”

    And your point is?

  • Cicero Langa

    Well Maggs Yikes, I think the man makes a pretty good point. Some people who see themselvs as missionaries are still having a good time with the locals.

    In other news:
    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/Motlanthe-hails-Zuma-as-a-good-example-20121206

    Either Kglema is very stupid (a complete pussy and a sell-out) or he is very smart.

  • Blue Ozone

    “Before the missionaries corrupted us with this essentially ridiculous notion that who we have sex with says something important about who we are and whether we are good or bad people, concepts such as homosexuality and heterosexuality were not known to us.”

    LOL.

    Our traditional African culture apologist/expert makes no sense at all.

  • Nkosinathi

    Let us not loose the crux of the matter. Assigning guilt takes one no further than the bounds of a circumference. The bottom line is that the new constitutional dispensation has to be acknowledged. An attack on sexual orientation purports to offend the provisions of the constitution. This in no circumstances can be tolerated.

    The core issue here is the development of our traditional leaders in an attempt to advance constitutional justice to even the most disparate in our country. In doing so, we must be mindful of the rights of others, to dignity, equality and respect. However divergeant our views may be, it is imperative that one divorces themself from a blame game, courteousness is key in legal debate.

  • Blue Ozone

    “Lucky for those of us who believe in progressive values, these provisions are entrenched in the Constitution and cannot be amended by the ANC because it will probably never again achieve a two-thirds majority of votes necessary to do so unilaterally. ”

    We understand how the (Stellenbosch bred) white liberal has entrenched WHITENESS as opposition and we know what this game is really about.

  • Nkosinathi

    Proff. De Vos,

    It is apparent that your article is offensive to many, inclusively myself. The manner in which it came across is rather unfavorable.

    May we see your response to all of this.

  • Dmwangi

    PdV has achieved a new level of ideological ‘bullshitting’ — no small feat coming from him. Next thing you know he’ll be trying to apply his homosexual hermeneutic to the Koran to convince Coloureds that his orientation is compatible with Islam. Just a few cavils:

    1) There is no contradiction between proscribing homosexuality while endorsing polygamy because European (“missionary, colonial, etc.”) ethics are irrelevant. Polygamy is compatible with African culture. Homosexuality is not.

    ‘Interestingly, this antagonism towards relationships that do not conform to the colonially-imposed idea about marriage as being between one man and one women….’

    2) If the traditional leaders are wrong, and “there is nothing wrong with [them], why does PdV pay to see a mental therapist? Is this not an indicator that at least something *might* be wrong?

    3) This is ‘bullshit.’ PdV is not an authority on African Traditional Thought and anyone who has read those who are (Kenyatta, Mbiti, etc.) knows that we had sexual norms long before the missionaries arrived. And who is the ‘us’ he refers to?

    ‘Before the missionaries corrupted us with this essentially ridiculous notion that who we have sex with says something important about who we are and whether we are good or bad people, concepts such as homosexuality and heterosexuality were not known to us.’

    4) All the meretricious, specious ‘bullshit’ in the world about how whites duped us into thinking homosexuality is immoral cannot change the fact that the practice of it is anathema to African culture. For this very reason, PdV’s views will never have anywhere remotedly close to the support those of the traditional leaders do. I leave you with the words of my good and learned friend explaining how PdV is trying to impose his European values on us by convincing us they’re our own:

    ‘Unlike Christianity and Islam, homosexuality is un-African

    Homosexuality refers to sexual relationships between two people of the same sex. Karl-Maria Kertbeny coined the term homosexual in 1869 in a pamphlet arguing against a Prussian anti-sodomy law. And so homosexuality, the ideology that sodomy is good, was born.

    Societal attitudes towards same sex relationships vary. Some ritualistic forms of erotic attraction and sexual pleasure between males existed as part of the cultural norm in some ancient cultures. Nevertheless, nowhere in antiquity or the Middle Ages, is sodomy experienced as it is done today by homosexuals as an exclusive, permanent, or defining mode of sexuality.

    As a result of campaigns that began in the West with the formation of the modern gay rights movement in 1969 (marking the 100th anniversary of the sodomite becoming the homosexual), there has been, in some countries, a trend towards increased visibility, recognition, and legal rights for homosexuals, including marriage and civil unions, parenting rights, and equal access to healthcare. But in most nations homosexuality remains illegal.

    Sober Africans will tell you with religious finality that homosexuality is “un-African.” But those in the homosexual movement dismiss that notion as nonsensical. A cartoonist recently tried to discredit Kenyan clergymen pushing that argument by portraying them as hypocrites since the Bible itself is not African. Some in the homosexual movement argue derisively that there is no intellectual tradition or argument that can rely on an unexamined, uncritical sense of that abstract collectivity called “African.”

    Those like the cartoonist totally miss what is meant by being “un-African.” The philosophically coherent, plausible, and sophisticated, worldview of, say, the Abakhayo (Bantu) and Iteso (Nilotes) of Busia is contained in their elaborate folklores, ritiuals, etc that transmit their cultural values of kinship. That intellectual tradition, which is an aspect of the larger body of African intellectual tradition, places great import on the morality of both public and private life, values found in both the Bible and the Koran. Nothing in the body of Abakhayo/Iteso intellectual life glamorises “Omulosi/Ekachudan” (the wicked one). In fact, it morally binds us to condemn a person whose private activities block the flow of life.

    In African traditions, like in the Abrahamic religions, spirituality has a moral dimension. Human relationship and social harmony are vital elements in the African sense of moral aesthetics. According to John S. Mbiti, it is only in terms of other people that the individual himself is conscious of his own being, his own duties, his privileges and responsibilities towards other people: “I am because we are, and since we are, therefore I am”.

    This is a morality of ‘conduct’ rather than a morality of ‘being.’ Hence, it matters to others what two consenting adults do in private. This morality occurs in contrast to emphasizing an individual’s sense of self, autonomy or being, that is, of the self which does not place much value on social relationships. Corporate existence signifies a responsibility of many for one, and vice versa.

    According to A. T. Dalfovo, the fact that African ethics emphasises human relationship shows the significance attached to the individual human being, by being perceived as the centre of the relationship, and as an active agent and participant in the relationship. The emphasis is not on the autonomy, freedom, and critical inclination of the individual in the sense of Socratic ethics, but on an appreciation of the status and role of the individual in the ethical and socio-economic pattern, which entails the individual’s active agency and participation in the overriding moral imperative to pass on life.

    Witches, those who engage in activities that block the natural flow of life, are not tolerated in life, and children are not named after them when they die (i.e. they are not given nominal reincarnation) because their evil souls never go to rest with the ancestors.

    One could thus say that whereas secular European ethics conceives the individual as an intellectual being, emphasising the faculty of reason as the basic tenet in moral conduct, African ethics conceives the individual as an ethical entity. It is, indeed, this ethical perception that makes the relationship human.

    The ethical individuality of the human being is alien in African (also Christian and Islamic) ethics which places considerable value on the conformity of the individual to the social group and social consciousness.

    While the sense of relationship and community underlies African traditional ethics, in contrast to the European sense of autonomy, the individual is not perceived as just a mere presence in the community. As an individual, he is perceived both as the centre of the relationship and also as contributing to its sustenance, especially through procreation. Hence, he possesses an ethical status and contributes a role in the ethical and entire social spectrum.

    Hence, within this construct of morality, with reference to the particular African context and drawing on African philosophical and cultural traditions, homosexuality (the ideology that sodomy is good), unlike Christianity or Islam, is un-African to the extent that it is an affront to the community as a whole, especially because it blocks reproduction, which is the main purpose of African morality within the kinship.

    That is what the Most Reverend Peter Jasper Akinola, Anglican Primate of the Church of Nigeria means when, both as an African and a Christian, he asks: “Homosexuality seeks to destroy marriage as we know it, unity as we know it, family life as we know it, so how can we endorse that?”‘

  • John Roberts

    Errrr… I think when you propose that opposition to same-sex marriage is a colonial prejudice forced on people that you are talking shit.

    In any case marriage is a religious belief and you are not religious. So your argument kinda falls into the toilet. Where it belongs.

    Frankly I have never read such a load of self-seeking bullshit in my life.

  • Blue Ozone

    “But over the past few years – as the ANC turned sharply to the right under President Jacob Zuma”

    I think it would be better for PdV to indulge in some more coolie bashing.

    Next he is going to try and convince us that polygamy and the presidents “many wives” were also forced upon the once noble, constitutionally correct, savages of Africa by Europeans, colonialism and those evil Christian missionaries.

  • Blue Ozone

    John Roberts
    December 6, 2012 at 22:10 pm

    “Frankly I have never read such a load of self-seeking bullshit in my life.”

    Nail, hammer.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years!

    Cicero Langa
    December 6, 2012 at 21:40 pm

    CL,

    I start from the premise that heterosexuals cannot be homophobic.

    By heterosexuals I mean those who are comfortable with and confident of their own sexuality and thus unlikely to be adversely bothered by the sexuality/sexual orientation of others.

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years!
    December 6, 2012 at 22:19 pm

    So we are on the same page. My dear pappa used to say that the comrade of my comrade is my friend.

  • Peter Pan

    I have a frank question for all those who insist homosexuality is normal.

    Why does the anus not become lubricated (like the vagina) so as to make the entry of the penis easier during sexual arousal ?

    Surely evolution would have overcome this little issue by now ? And why can’t men give birth if it’s so normal ? Why has evolution not stepped up and solved this little issue as well ?

    Huh ?

  • Blue Ozone

    Peter Pan
    December 6, 2012 at 22:40 pm

    I suggest for examples of the “anus become lubricated” the delicious over-spiced Durban bunny chow and of course good old “army cooking” as WHITES had to endure under SANDF conscription in old Apartheid South Africa.

  • Maggs Naidu – Yikes, another seven years!

    Peter Pan
    December 6, 2012 at 22:40 pm

    Hey Peter Pan,

    I’ll let you into a little secret.

    DMwangi’s hand becomes lubricated.

  • Cicero Langa

    Wow, this one didnt take long to go way, way South, did it?

    Can’t we rather start talking about Mangaung? The ANC is almost on Kenneth Kaunda avenue (used to be Eeufees Road) making their way into the city under the watchful eye of Black Jesus (whose statue is being erected on Signal Hill, fist in the air and all). We have to start talking about the state of “our nascent the democracy”.

    We know there will be expensive whiskey, but will there be blood?

  • Nkosinathi

    Wow, strong arguments made, have To see if pdv will respond

  • Cicero Langa

    http://mg.co.za/article/2012-12-07-00-secret-report-reveals-how-millions-flowed-to-zuma

    Right folks, now we have the facts. A 490 page KPMG report into our Primus Traditional Leader. The man couldnt be dirtier. No references to “the African way” or “Dark Forces” can him around the hard facts. The man’s `n skelm; and the people protecting him are skelms too.

    So, will good prevail over evil?

  • Dmwangi

    This is PdV’s example of a conservative, patriarchal organization:

    ‘Durban – Just over 50% of the KwaZulu-Natal ANC’s nominations for positions in the party’s national executive committee are for women, the Mercury reported on Tuesday.

    Out of the 80 names on the list for positions in the NEC, KwaZulu-Natal nominated 42 women.

    Baleka Mbete and Jessie Duarte were both nominated for positions in the top six – the national working committee – increasing the number of women nominated by the province to 44.

    Other women who were nominated included chairperson of the African Union Commission Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga, provincial speaker Peggy Nkonyeni, Gauteng Premier Nomvula Mokonyane, and International Relations and Co-operation Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane.’

  • Brett Nortje
  • Brett Nortje

    If two men get married whose parents pay Lobola?

  • Brett Nortje

    See? I can do facetious.

    When what I really want to do is go strangle De Vos where he is lying kaalgat on the beach for trivialising the most fundamental conundrum confronting the country today and making it about…sex. As usual. Predictably.

    AGAIN.

    Not about individual ownership of communal property to kickstart capital formation and start lifting rural women out of poverty.

    1/3 South AFricans are still in tribal areas. Women, Children. Old men.

    The lucky younger men are labour-broked by Cyril.

    Why do our black bloggers not tell us about – when you’re cruising along the road to say Giyani? Or Msinga?

    A big hut connected to 2 or 3 smaller ones by say, a mud inner wall? What is happening there?

    If Maggs were honest he’d tell you he really does not like Gandhi becaue of last-mentioned’s chirps about black men only wanting enough money to buy a cow to pay for a wife.

  • Blue Ozone

    Dmwangi
    December 7, 2012 at 7:34 am

    “This is PdV’s example of a conservative, patriarchal organization:

    ‘Durban – Just over 50% of the KwaZulu-Natal ANC’s nominations for positions in the party’s national executive committee are for women, the Mercury reported on Tuesday.”

    Dmwangi – the facts doesn’t realy matter. These super white liberal types will not be satisfied until everybody is gay/lesbian and the “traditional way” has become to be accepted as deviant and/or morally reprehensible.

  • Pierre de Vos

    I respond to arguments, not hateful prejudice.

  • Nkosinathi

    Ironic, weren’t you trying to be rid of this prejudice in your article? This is a platform to adress it.

    Others see your article as prejudiced as well, you had a response from them.

  • Olds

    Dmwangi
    “There is no contradiction between proscribing homosexuality while endorsing polygamy because European (“missionary, colonial, etc.”) ethics are irrelevant. Polygamy is compatible with African culture. Homosexuality is not.”

    So, basically, what you are saying is that the freedom to live one’s live as one chooses, as long as one harm no-one else, as enshrined in the (South) African Constitution is all well and fine as long as one choose to live the traditional African cultural way?

    Would that include such choice practices as total obedience to a husband, iow giving up your right as a women to equality in favour of patriarchy?

    So that is why Zuma created the dept of women, children and the disabled. It is so that we asexual/heterosexual non-religious teagirls can be made to understand that whilst we are free to choose how we live, it better be the “African Cultural” way.

    What next? A dept of correction of un-natural lifestyles?

    Oh cry the beloved Animal Farm! It is “reasoning” like this that leads genocide.

  • Nkosinathi

    Olds,

    What exagerations. Speak to your elders and find out more on the mutual respect principles that are applicable to African custom.

    The biggest problem we face is misunderstanding of African customs because we have a bunch of clueless people, professing to know about custom.

    Respect for your husband does not amount to inferiority and male dominance is not female liberation, redefine your principles, get a better understanding.

  • Olds

    PdV – please continue stirring the comfortable hypocratical notions harboured in these narrowly schooled minds. Even if it will not ensure any real, grownup rights to us breadwinner teagirls soon, at least we can enjoy watching the apologists for Victorian values squirm. The Western world and even some parts of Africa, to a large extent moved beyond those, but here in (South) Africa we will hound and adjust those who try.

    Democracy? Yes please.

  • Olds

    Nkosinathi
    “Speak to your elders and find out more on the mutual respect principles that are applicable to African custom.”

    So after I speak to “my” elders, they will make me see the light of the African Way and drive out all un-African notions I might have so that I can once again live as a proper African woman should?

    Thank you for clearing up the role of the Elders for me. No need to create a dept of correction of unnatural lifestyles, we allready have an Adjusment dept in the form of the Elders. Being old myself and not inclined to be asjusted after spending a lifetime fighting for equality and the freedom to live the way I choose, I must respectfully decline your (male) advice.

  • Olds

    Further Nkosinathi
    What if I don’t have a husband (by choice)? Will one be picked for me? Will I be adjusted by rape?

    And then they call this the 21st Century.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Dmwangi

    “Witches, those who engage in activities that block the natural flow of life, are not tolerated in [traditional African] life”

    Dmwangi is right. And so were, medieval catholics, who likewise appreciated that women who blocked the natural flow of life needed to be dealt with quite firmly.

    Thanks.

  • Nkosinathi

    Olds,

    Read my statement holistically and carefully, don’t miscontextualise it.

  • Nkosinathi

    If you read my very first comment, you’d realise, I’m a liberationalist, but I am also African. You’re a liberationalist but choose not to be African, our views will differ on that aspect. Don’t miiscontextualise me. I end there.

  • Zoo Keeper

    Blaming missionaries is utterly ridiculous.

    Remember that homosexuality only became acceptable in “mainstream white culture” (complete generalization I know) in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

    So there is no “difference” in cultural attitudes between “African” and “White” views on homosexuality. Both were and are equally intolerant to a large degree.

    Can you guys stop trying to pretend there is a difference? Both “White” and “African” cultural norms are near identical. We have the different mechanisms and practices to express ourselves, but the norms are identical on the whole.

  • Olds

    Nkosinathi
    “redefine your principles, get a better understanding.”
    Did I also mistakenly (unholistically) see that comment as direction (adjustment)?

    The problem with patriarchs is that they simply don’t understand that it is not so much a question of who is on top, but whether everyone, male and female, disabled or not have the opportunity to compete for the top.

  • Olds

    Nkosinathi
    “I’m a liberationalist, but I am also African. You’re a liberationalist but choose not to be African”

    And you reserve the right to define what is African and what is not?

  • Dirk de Vos

    Nkosinathi, my god, you nailed it! Your first post is the most sensible contribution to the whole debate. There is no need to get into speculative (at best) anthopology. The constitution governs us all know and it includes making discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal. How different cultures discriminated or persecuted homosexuals, women, or other minorities for whatever reason has got nothing to do with it. That is what progress is all about.

  • Gwebecimele
  • Gwebecimele
  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Brett Nortje
    December 7, 2012 at 8:34 am

    LOL Goofy,

    “If Maggs were honest he’d tell you he really does not like Gandhi becaue of last-mentioned’s chirps about black men only wanting enough money to buy a cow to pay for a wife.”

    I don’t “not like” Gandhi.

    I just think he was a turd.

    Had Einstein knew then what we know now of him, Einstein would have said of Gandhi “Generations to come, it may well be, will scarce believe that such a man as this one ever in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth.”

  • Beetle

    Historians have claimed that Shaka Zulu had an obsessive relationship with his mother, Nandi.
    He also had no chldren. Rather ?? than homosexual he is posibly thought of as a paedophobe – one who has a fear of children.
    Revered rightly as a great African warior and strategist he nontheless had a few quirks in his make up.
    Informed African historians are welcome to put the story straight and re-educate me.

  • Olds

    Beetle
    I thought that was called an Oedipus complex.
    Mmmm Oedipus Rex?

  • Dmwangi

    Pierre de Vos
    December 7, 2012 at 8:43 am
    I respond to arguments, not hateful prejudice.

    You seem to only respond to emotion and desire.

    But here’s a serious question: are you honestly hubristic enough to believe in the universalism of Western European liberalism? In other words, do you really believe the ideas and political values that Western Europeans are fond of are so cogent and compelling that people the world over will lay down millennia of philosophy, tradition and religion and embrace them? That Africans, Arabs, Jews, Sinic peoples, etc. will just say, “Oh, the Europeans got it right. Now we can jettison Mohamed, the Talmud, ATR, Buddhism, etc. and embrace Western individualism and sexual morality.”

    You’re living in a dream world. Trying to impose Europeans values on 3/4 of humanity or hectoring them by calling them ‘haters’ is not going to help your cause. You might be able to actually dialogue with people and come to some mutual understanding if you had tolerance for divergent views but it’s my experience that people like you simply assume that your’s is the only acceptable, enlightened view and therefore, you should be free to impose it on all us ‘primitive’ peoples. But it is unclear to me that your morality– which arose in white countries in the 1960′s– is superior to that of my ancestors. Compare the demographics of the countries that embrace your view with those that share mine. Yours are going extinct (almost entirely due to your sexual morality).

    You will lose this one for the simple fact that people who hold your view do not reproduce at a comparable rate, if at all. Demography is destiny:

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#section_5

  • ozoneblue

    @pdv

    That is clearly a strawman erected to save yourself from embaressement because you cannot argue rationally instead all you are good at is rehashing discredited CRT rubbish that you have been brainwashed into in good old capitalist racist USA.

    Shit opening post and even worse follow up. Raise your fucking game boet.

  • sirjay jonson

    How do Christianity’s homophobic and intolerant followers reconcile their belief with the principal command of Christ: “Love one another”.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 7, 2012 at 16:26 pm

    Hey Dm,

    “Yours are going extinct (almost entirely due to your sexual morality).”

    Sexual morality is inspired (and you seem impressed ) by WHITE people.

    In India me and 1,224,614,000 (+ a whole lot more since 2010) coolies have a saying “just do it!”. Sort of like the Nike guys on steroids.

    We’re so, er, generous, that if Brett came to visit me in the streets of Hyderabad, with his gun in one hand and his Bible in the other, guess what – all three will come back pregnant.

    But you know that already – you’ve been to India many times, nè.

    p.s. And you know the codeword too!

  • Dmwangi

    ‘Sexual morality is inspired (and you seem impressed ) by WHITE people.’

    ‘Bullshit.’ All peoples have, and have always had, their own sexual morality.

    I assure you India is not a rising superpower due to its infrastructure or good governance. It is solely the result of conjoining rudimentary market norms/policies with its pro-natalist culture. A billion young, energetic, ambitious workers will economically trounce the geriatrics clinging to life in the European world any day of the week.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 7, 2012 at 19:44 pm

    Pah Dm,

    “I assure you India is not a rising superpower due to its infrastructure or good governance.”

    Changing the subject does not help.

    You related self-GENOCIDE with “sexual morality”.

    Perhaps you should explain what “sexual morality” means.

    Do people who bonk goats have sexual morality?

    Or perhaps those who kidnap little girls and claim “tradition”?

  • Dmwangi

    It’s not “self-Genocide.” It is cultural/civilizational suicide. Europeans are killing their posterity, not themselves (although they do that at a much higher rate than Africans).

    Of course those people have a sexual morality. It is impossible not to have one, even if it’s not explicit. Everyone has a view about what is ‘good’ sex and what is ‘bad’ sex. Having the hedonic view is a moral claim. Taking the zoophilia view is a moral stance. And so on….

  • Dmwangi

    Morality is not a hard concept: what a person thinks is good or bad, right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable, tolerable or intolerable, worthy or unworthy, desirable or undesirable, praiseworthy or unpraiseworthy, etc.

    Hard to see how any person can be neutral about all of this aspects wrt sexual relations.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 7, 2012 at 20:31 pm

    “Morality is not a hard concept”

    Indeed.

    Horny-ness is!

    It’s not at all “(h)ard to see how any person can be neutral about all of this aspects wrt sexual relations.”

    Minimise the subjectivity and remove discretion.

    Just stick with the interpretation according to our Constitution and our laws.

  • sirjay jonson

    Dmwangi
    December 7, 2012 at 20:31 pm

    “Hard to see how any person can be neutral about all of this aspects wrt (sp) sexual relations.”

    Simple actually, mind one’s own business where violent or obvious criminal acts are not being committed, quit judging based on one’s limited parental upbringing with all the prejudices which come with that…. and

    Live and let live.

  • Dmwangi

    1) Whose interpretation of the Constitution?

    2) The Constitution and positive law generally are not moral guides as evidenced by the fact that if we amended the Constitution to proscribe homosexuality, you would not have given that response. Apartheid was not moral even if it was legal. I hope you will ‘stick’ to the laws when they are amended to codify my view.

    3) Minimse subjectivity? I thought we were arguing about objective ontologies. ART is making an objective claim: our way is right. You are also make an objective claim by saying your view is right. Subjectivity is totally irrelevant.

    Your view is not neutral. You believe that homosexuality is acceptable. ATR, as I delineated above, does not. How does one remain neutral between these two views? It’s not possible.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    sirjay jonson
    December 7, 2012 at 20:57 pm

    Sirjay,

    “Simple actually, mind one’s own business where violent or obvious criminal acts are not being committed, quit judging based on one’s limited parental upbringing with all the prejudices which come with that…. and”

    “Live and let live.”

    That about sums up Dmwangi’s position!

    It seems to me that is precisely what he is saying to PdV.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Dmwangi

    “Taking the zoophilia view is a moral stance. ”

    Dmwangi, I love the zoo as much as anyone. But I prefer viewing animals in “open-structured” zoos, as in the San Diego. It is immoral to confine mammals in concrete boxes and wire cages, as one still sees in the older parts of the zoos in London and Lyon.

    Thanks.

  • Dmwangi

    Sirjay:

    I wish you whites would ‘live and let live.’

    Do it your way in Canada and allow Africans to decide how we govern our sexual mores. Stop imposing your European sexual ethics — I.e. homosexual agenda– over here. Just live and let us live with our own views about good and bad sexual practices, you hypocrite!

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 7, 2012 at 20:59 pm

    1) Ultimately the CC’s “interpretation of the Constitution”

    2) “if we amended the Constitution to proscribe homosexuality” – that’s not possible.

    3) “Subjectivity is totally irrelevant”. Agreed – so let’s stick with what the 11 judges have to say.

    “You believe that homosexuality is acceptable” – I believe that heterosexuals are indifferent. See my post above – December 6, 2012 at 22:19 pm.

  • Dmwangi

    Forcing people to accept something that is against their beliefs and way of life is not what any rational person can call neutrality. So why is forcing Africans to accept something anathema to ATR and our culture suddenly being called ‘neutral.’

  • Dmwangi

    You don’t see Africans running over to France and telling them they must ban gay marriage. Because we Africans know how to ‘live and let live.’

    It’s the Europeans that feel the need to evangelis/ (or impose) the whole world to their views.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 7, 2012 at 21:08 pm

    DM,

    “So why is forcing Africans to accept something anathema to ATR and our culture suddenly being called ‘neutral.’”

    You’re mistaken on being forced to be “neutral” – that would be a really silly thing to do.

    It’s irrelevant whether or not you or anyone else accepts homosexuality, as long as homosexuals are not discriminated against in any way.

    As I said – believe that heterosexuals are indifferent!

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 7, 2012 at 21:16 pm

    Dm,

    “You don’t see Africans running over to France and telling them they must ban gay marriage. Because we Africans know how to ‘live and let live.’”

    Kak man!

    You’ve been going for months telling Africans that homosexuality is unAfrican.

    You’ve been advocating for banning gay marriages.

    Now you’re claiming to ‘live and let live’ – are you drink?

  • D.Mwangi

    You don’t see Africans running over to France and telling them they must ban gay marriage. Because we Africans know how to ‘live and let live.’

    It’s the Europeans that feel the need to evangelis/ (or impose) the whole world to their views. This blog is a testament to that very fact.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    D.Mwangi
    December 7, 2012 at 21:20 pm

    Pah!

    “You don’t see Africans running over to France and telling them they must ban gay marriage. Because we Africans know how to ‘live and let live.’”

    That’s probably because the Africans who ‘run to France’ want to get away from those with the backward views on human rights!

  • Blue Ozone

    @maggs

    “We’re so, er, generous, that if Brett came to visit me in the streets of Hyderabad, with his gun in one hand and his Bible in the other, guess what – all three will come back pregnant.”

    Now that made me smile for a while.

    LOL.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Dmwagi is right. Our people have had enough colonial imposition. More than anything. Africans demand to be left alone, to let nature take its course. But cultural imperialism continues. Just this Monday, an arch emissary of neo-liberal universalism and sodomic self-suicide was to be heard offering the following dubious advice at the Cape Town Stadium:

    “Don’t be a drag, just be a queen
    Whether you’re broke or evergreen
    You’re black, white, beige, chola descent
    You’re Lebanese, you’re orient”

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    December 7, 2012 at 21:16 pm

    “It’s irrelevant whether or not you or anyone else accepts homosexuality, as long as homosexuals are not discriminated against in any way.”

    Ja well. That is an entirely different thing from demanding that 10.754 % of of the KwaZulu-Natal ANC’s nominations for positions in the party’s national executive committee are reserved for gays and transsexuals.

  • Blue Ozone

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    December 7, 2012 at 22:07 pm

    “Dmwagi is right. Our people have had enough colonial imposition. More than anything. Africans demand to be left alone, to let nature take its course. But cultural imperialism continues.”

    So stop using “WHITISH” in vain. Where do you stand on “allowing” traditional African culture in Africa.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    December 7, 2012 at 22:16 pm

    I’m pleased that you agree that those who are confident about their own sexuality/sexual orientation will not be affected by what others do (provided it’s within the bounds of our laws of course).

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Supreme Court to Hear Gay-Marriage Cases

    WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court for the first time entered the debate over gay marriage Friday, announcing it would decide whether a federal law denying benefits to same-sex spouses violates the Constitution.

    The high court also said it would accept a case involving California’s Proposition 8, a 2008 state measure that barred same-sex marriages in the state.

    The move means that a defining legal moment is set to come by next June after a year in which gay marriage assumed even greater prominence in the national debate. President Barack Obama in May said he personally believed gay couples should enjoy the right to wed, becoming the first sitting president to take that stand. In November, Maine, Maryland and Washington state became the first states to approve gay marriage at the ballot box.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324640104578165363433361742.html?mod=e2tw

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would enter the national debate over same-sex marriage, agreeing to hear a pair of cases challenging state and federal laws that define marriage to include only unions of a man and a woman.

    One of the cases, from California, could establish or reject a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Another case, from New York, challenges a federal law that requires the federal government to deny benefits to gay and lesbian couples married in states that allow such unions.

    The court’s move comes against the backdrop of a rapid shift in public attitudes about same-sex marriage, with recent polls indicating that a majority of Americans support allowing such unions. After last month’s elections, the number of states authorizing same-sex marriage increased by half, to nine.

    The court’s docket is now crowded with cases about the meaning of equality, with the new cases joining ones on affirmative action in higher education and the future of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Decisions in all of those cases are expected by June.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-two-cases-on-gay-marriage.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    December 7, 2012 at 22:43 pm

    “WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court for the first time entered the debate over gay marriage Friday, announcing it would decide whether a federal law denying benefits to same-sex spouses violates the Constitution.”

    Good. So when are the USA “Supreme Court” enter the debate about polygamous Muslim marriage.

    Or are their armed forces too busy exterminating this un-American/Civilised/Western cultural phenomena – to really care?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    December 7, 2012 at 22:54 pm

    Blue Boy,

    “So when are the USA “Supreme Court” enter the debate about polygamous Muslim marriage.”

    I’ll ask Barack when I next speak with him.

    In other news …

    UK to allow gay marriages in churches

    London – Britain will announce plans next week to allow gay marriages in churches and other religious buildings, officials said Friday, although Prime Minister David Cameron insisted no faith group would be forced to hold them.

    http://www.news24.com/World/News/UK-to-allow-gay-marriages-in-churches-20121207

  • Blue Ozone

    I agree maggs. One of the greatest conundrums for human rights are if gays and lesbeens should be allowed to get married in a mosque.

    Minor issues like the racial demographics and colour of orphans are only a minor irritant.

    “Orphanage ‘too white’ for donations

    Johannesburg – A Pretoria orphanage says it is no longer getting financial support from large companies as 70% of the children in its care are white.

    Elzane van der Merwe of the Jacaranda children’s home said: “The only answer that the children’s home is getting is: ‘Sorry, you don’t meet the criteria for 100% black economic empowerment (BEE),” reported Beeld.

    But Van der Merwe said the children’s home couldn’t choose which children to take in.

    “To us a child is a child. We don’t discriminate. Here we have 250 children between 18 months and 18 years that need care, regardless of race or gender.”

    She said that even though the department of trade and industry had withdrawn the new suggested BEE codes, welfare organisations countrywide were still affected.

    The suggested codes award points to companies for their BEE programmes and donations.

    She said their income had dropped drastically due to the BEE codes, even though there was an increase in the children that needed care.

    The home only looks after children placed in its care by court order.”

    http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Orphanage-too-white-for-donations-20121207

    Now if that is not a example of “hateful prejudice” a hallmark of a fascist political system then I don’t know what is?

  • Blue Ozone

    “To us a child is a child. We don’t discriminate. Here we have 250 children between 18 months and 18 years that need care, regardless of race or gender.”

    But I would suggest that if the NDR gets to accomplish its mission, i.e. “impose a dictatorship over the “the former dominating and exploiting classes” by legislating demographical representativity and a “more rigid” approach to AA/BEE – that it would be better to euthanise the WHITE children.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Brett

    Under our Constitution, all children are creatures of God and equally entitled to dignity, equality, security, shelter and Ubuntu. That said, I do not see that government must continue to subsidies non-African orphans. I say European children can go back to England, Belgium, France and Germany, where they will be well treated and raised.

    Thanks very much.

    Thanks.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    subsidies = subsidise

    Thanks.

  • Brett Nortje

    This blog has turned into a regular circlejerk. The topic is “Traditional leaders caught in a colonial time warp”.

    If it is Mwangi’s position that ‘Boohoohoo’ you guys don’t respect my culture’ let him go back to his shamba to plot against cattle-raiders.

    All the problems we have today exist because colonial governments, and even worse, the National Party, were respectful of black culture when they should have employed a swift kick in the pants.

  • Blue Ozone

    @mfd

    “Under our Constitution, all children are creatures of God and equally entitled to dignity, equality, security, shelter and Ubuntu. That said, I do not see that government must continue to subsidies non-African orphans. I say European children can go back to England, Belgium, France and Germany, where they will be well treated and raised.”

    I agree mfd – that is without a doubt the crux of the “special kind of colonialist” theme in the NDR. As said it is therefore very important that WHITES, of all colours, religions and political persuasions must WAKE THE FUCK UP to understand where this is inevitably going. Before it is too late.

    FW De Klerk has articulated as well.

    “Unfortunately, the Mandela and Mbeki era of national reconciliation is over. Much of the proposed “second phase” of the National Democratic Revolution is openly directed against “white males” – who are quite unjustly blamed for the triple crisis of continuing unemployment, inequality and poverty. This happens at a time when government at the highest level exacerbates racial tensions by using aggressive racial rhetoric; by supporting the singing of racially provocative songs and by condoning the incendiary racial threats of some of its formations.”

    http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=314818&sn=Detail&pid=71619

  • Blue Ozone

    Brett Nortje
    December 8, 2012 at 14:26 pm

    “All the problems we have today exist because colonial governments, and even worse, the National Party, were respectful of black culture when they should have employed a swift kick in the pants.”

    I assume you exclude all the native Boer women and children who died in British concentration camps from that statement.

    “If you read the debates that led up to the Act of Union, the most striking thing is that the words ‘racial conflict’ referred to the Anglo- Boer war. What we would call the racial issue was then ‘the native problem’. The British had fought the war partly, it was said, to protect the interests of the natives from the Boers, the Afrikaners.

    During the war the British had encouraged Africans to work for British victory, which they did in large numbers. With victory, Britain might have been expected to extend the Cape non-racial franchise to the conquered territories of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony so that blacks would be represented in the whole territory the way they had been in the British colony. But not only did they not do so, they also limited the ‘native’ vote to the Cape. Africans were to have no say in the election of a national parliament, although they retained their voting rights to the Cape parliament.

    The young Churchill, then Under-Secretary for the Colonies, had covered the South African war as a journalist and had been captured by – and escaped from – the Boers. His knowledge and influence in making the agreement after peace was signed was crucial. In a debate in July 1906 he called the peace treaty ‘the first real step taken to withdraw South African affairs from the arena of British party politics’. He argued passionately that the Afrikaners should be allowed self-rule, a self-rule which he admitted would mean that black Africans would be excluded from the vote.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/apartheid-made-in-britain-richard-dowden-explains-how-churchill-rhodes-and-smuts-caused-black-south-africans-to-lose-their-rights-1370856.html

    And as you can see now – with the objectives of the NDR also stuck in a colonial time warp, unable to evolve with time, it was not only a simplistic issue of “the vote” but rather a long term strategy for Afrikaner survival.

    “Addressing Parliament in 1960, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan spelled out what he thought was the most suitable for South Africa: “a society in which individual merit alone is the criterion for a man’s advancement, whether political or economic.” This was where countries of Europa arrived at in the twentieth century after many centuries of conflict. Macmillan never seems to have wondered whether the in the quite different conditions of colonial Africa this model would be able to put down deep roots. By 1970 it had become clear that almost no post-colonial country in Africa had managed to introduce a system where only merit counted and where minorities were not marginalised or maltreated.

    In his response to Macmillan, Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd replied that whites had developed such a stake in South Africa that it had become their only motherland. Acting as a link between Europe and Africa, they had made themselves indispensable. “We are white” Verwoerd said, “but we are in Africa.” Speaking a few weeks later he rejected the notion that only numbers counted. Whites had always been a minority in the world, but had played a dominant role by virtue of their character, initiative, creative urge and intellectual capacity.

    He added: “The white man in Africa is not going to be told that because he is outnumbered by black peoples he must allow his rights to be swallowed up and be prepared to lose his say … The merit which counts is not only that of the individual – even though one recognises such merit in its right and proper place – because that would make it possible for the most capable groups to be outvoted. We who are white will stand, fight and win in Africa on the merits of our white community as an entity.”[8]”

    http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=345242&sn=Detail&pid=71616

  • Zoo Keeper

    DMwangi

    Some thought-provoking stuff, thanks.

    Western European stuff though, might not survive an analysis to prove it is based on individuality. A lot of European countries have been under socialist rule for a long time, and the one thing socialists cannot stand is the power of the individual. In fact, in the UK one could argue the individualist aspect has been entirely neutered.

    But for me, all common people yearn to be in control of themselves first and foremost.

    Western European society has been through feudal systems, religious dominance (like we see in the Middle East today – Holy Roman Empire and the role of the Catholic Church etc.).

    It is arguable that all Western Europeans have done is defeat those systems (only to allow their liberty to be whittled away because they no longer face them and have become lazy). In fact, had Africans invaded Europe in the 1500s similar arguments as yours would be at play from the Europeans?

    What do you reckon?

  • Blue Ozone

    Zoo Keeper
    December 8, 2012 at 16:35 pm

    “But for me, all common people yearn to be in control of themselves first and foremost. ”

    That is just populist, Eurocentric and pro-capitalist rubbish. At its roots it denies man as essentially a SOCIAL ANIMAL, that prospers through the means and the common goods created with and by others.

  • Dmwangi

    @Zoo Keeper:

    ‘In fact, had Africans invaded Europe in the 1500s similar arguments as yours would be at play from the Europeans?’

    Perhaps but it’s useless to conjecture about such a counterfactual.

    While libertarians may argue that Europeans are somewhat collectivist with respect to economics, it’s very difficult to sustain that argument when it’s applied to socio-cultural issues. Moreover, the underlying philosophy that informs the worldview of whites is still one of radical individuality. Compare Descartes’ cogito, or the state of nature in Locke and Hobbes to Ubuntu or to how Mbiti explains ATR:

    ‘According to John S. Mbiti, it is only in terms of other people that the individual himself is conscious of his own being, his own duties, his privileges and responsibilities towards other people: “I am because we are, and since we are, therefore I am”.’

    See how that’s different from “I think, therefore I am.”

    @Brett:

    ‘Boohoohoo?’ That is hilarious coming from the chap who is constantly whining that he is under threat of genocide. Face facts my racial-separatist, apartheid-nostalgic friend. Barring some unforeseen resurgence in white fecundity, your culture will be on the ash heap of history by century’s end. How anyone can claim their culture is superior when it’s incapable of even transmitting itself into the future is beyond me. Instead, you run around funding three separate population agencies at the U.N., inundate your twelve year-old daughters with IUDs and feminist rubbish about children being barriers to ‘personal autonomy.’

    If this is how whites want to behave in their own countries, fine. But not here. Africans will fight back. And not with ‘boohooing.’ But with their democratic majority, which grows stronger and stronger as the differences in respective reproduction values play themselves out.

    Strength in numbers:

    http://features.pewforum.org/africa/question.php?q=16

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Dmwangi is right. African “culture,” which, contrary to the dogmas of liberal individualism, is largely encoded in the GENES, will no doubt win out by 2200, thanks to blacks’ fantastic fecundity. (It turns out that Africans’ sense of rhythm, as well as their collectivist impulse, and heterormative tendency, are encoded on the 7358223th trillion base-pair. Not surprisingly, that it the same base that codes for melanin!)

    Thanks.

  • Lisbeth

    @Dmwangi

    “Strength in numbers”

    Population growth in South Africa currently stands at 0%.

    http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=24

  • Dmwangi

    @MDF:

    I see, MDF. You think Africans will choose to reject their culture in favour of European values. Shows how little you understand about human nature, the importance of identity and how it’s formed.

    Good luck with your project!

  • Dmwangi

    @Lisbeth:

    I know your numerical acumen is limited so I’ll try to be simple:

    Your statistic is meaningless unless you know how population growth is distributed racially, geographically (e.g. by province), how HIV/AIDS influences the various groupings and whether recently developed treatments are likely to have significant confounding factors.

    I’d also point out that Africa is larger than South Africa and you may want to look at the continental growth rates to get a flavour of whether Europe or Africa is going to be a cultural, geopolitical superpower a century from now.

  • Dmwangi

    @MDF:

    And why do you presume the universality of European liberalism? I assume you don’t believe it’s in their genes either, yet your assumption is that Europeans would never renounce those values in order to adopt African ones. You’re Marxist/Hegelian supposition that we are all inevitably moving toward a European Liberal consensus is laughable.

  • Blue Ozone

    Dmwangi
    December 8, 2012 at 18:38 pm

    “Face facts my racial-separatist, apartheid-nostalgic friend.”

    That is very interesting coming from you Dimwangi. I always understood why African traditionalists jumped at HF Verwoerd’s offer of separate black development as seems to be the point PdV is making in his opening remarks. But you seem to disagree?

    So on the one hand you have a problem with “racial-separatist, apartheid-nostalgic” whites like Brett and on the other hand you blame the blue eyed devils for forcing their culture on you and contaminating your pure noble African culture with all types of filth?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Lisbeth
    December 8, 2012 at 18:57 pm

    Hey Lisbeth,

    I know your numerical acumen is limited, in fact I know that you, being from Limpopo, have a maths level of 8,5%.

    Since your literacy is slightly better at 8½% I’ll try and be a simple as Dmwangi is.

    Had you been to “that other graduate school” it would have been better.

    You assume that “(p)opulation growth in South Africa currently stands at 0%” because Dmwangi is a closet heterosexual.

    Let’s clear that up.

    Dmwangi always makes a plan – do you know that Dm has it solved.

    He’s got a gardener!

    While Dm is racing his M1 on the M3 or otherwise playing with the boys, the gardener is, er, gardening!

  • Dmwangi

    ‘At its roots it denies man as essentially a SOCIAL ANIMAL, that prospers through the means and the common goods created with and by others.’

    Exactly right. Aristotle made a similar point. “Individualism breeds selfishness,” said Tocqueville, another prescient white man. Perhaps you whites can one day recover those traditions. But as of now, you have no sense of community. And if you don’t listen to people from other traditions like Lee Kwan Yew, Mbiti, al Maktoum about the incompatibility of Western liberal individualism with their cultures, you’re going to creat a lot of hostility and resentment. The most arrogant, dangerous and destructive meme Europeans ever developed was that their political values were universal.

  • Dmwangi

    @BO:

    I’m not a racial separatist. The problem is whites believing their values are universal and therefore having no qualms about not respecting other people’s traditions.

    As I said above:

    “You’re living in a dream world. Trying to impose Europeans values on 3/4 of humanity or hectoring them by calling them ‘haters’ is not going to help your cause. You might be able to actually dialogue with people and come to some mutual understanding if you had tolerance for divergent views but it’s my experience that people like you simply assume that your’s is the only acceptable, enlightened view and therefore, you should be free to impose it on all us ‘primitive’ peoples”

    Emphasis on mutual understanding. We can live together but only if whites become a bit more humble in their understanding of tolerance. Tolerance does not include being intolerant in the name of enforcing your view of tolerance. Can you imagine the reaction if Africans started taking France to ICC, ECHR, UN, etc. claiming that the French had no respect for human rights because they don’t allow polygamy or because they do sanction gay marriage?????

    Europeans cannot even fathom it. because they presuppose “we’ve already got human rights ‘figured’ out. It’s those other ‘primitives’– China, Singapore, Africa, the Middle East’ that need our ‘human rights.’ Yet as I pointed out, white culture is incapable of perpetuating itself.

    It’s so absurd it’s almost worthy of mockery.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 8, 2012 at 20:35 pm

    Hey Dm,

    “Perhaps you whites can one day recover those traditions. But as of now, you have no sense of community. And if you don’t listen to people from other traditions like Lee Kwan Yew, Mbiti, al Maktoum about the incompatibility of Western liberal individualism with their cultures, you’re going to creat a lot of hostility and resentment.”

    WHITE people will be very IMPRESSED by that.

    “The most arrogant, dangerous and destructive meme Europeans ever developed was that their political values were universal” – hmmm. Perhaps WHITE people should learn from African people whose political values are, as you taught us, not, er, universal???

    As you say “Africans will fight back. And not with ‘boohooing.’ But with their democratic majority, which grows stronger and stronger as the differences in respective reproduction values play themselves out.”

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 8, 2012 at 20:51 pm

    DM,

    “It’s so absurd it’s almost worthy of mockery.”

    Your post is not that silly.

    Ok, I lie.

    It is that silly!

  • Dmwangi

    The white view of human rights is so facile it can be summed up in a sentence: do as you wish, so long as it doesn’t harm (which is conspicuously never defined) anyone else.”

    Notice it says nothing about any duties or obligations to others. No community. Every man for himself. Darwinian all the way down. You cannot run a company much less a country on that ethic. But if it works for whites, fine. Let them do it.

    All I’m saying is its incompatible with ATR which places much emphasis on community, care, concern for others, etc. and Europeans should not try to impose their values on us.

  • Dmwangi

    ‘Perhaps WHITE people should learn from African people whose political values are, as you taught us, not, er, universal???’

    Maybe they are. Maybe not. But I’d never be so arrogant to presume they are and therefore feel compelled to impose them on Europeans.

    It’s called tolerance, Maggs.

  • Blue Ozone

    Dmwangi
    December 8, 2012 at 20:51 pm

    “I’m not a racial separatist. The problem is whites believing their values are universal and therefore having no qualms about not respecting other people’s traditions.”

    Fair enough. Then we are on the same page.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 8, 2012 at 21:03 pm

    Dm,

    You display doublethink with artisanal dexterity – did you acquire it at “that graduate school”?

  • Blue Ozone

    Dmwangi
    December 8, 2012 at 21:00 pm

    “Notice it says nothing about any duties or obligations to others. No community. Every man for himself.”

    Then you believe Karl Marx, Engels, Che Guevera and the USSR, Cuba, Eastern block people were all .. in fact … African?

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/06/20126511494498219.html

  • Dmwangi

    @Maggs:

    The feeble-minded often mistake nuance for ‘doublethink.

    Everything I said was consistent. Europeans should not impose their values on other traditions, and the same holds for Africans.

    We’ll do it our way. Whites can do it their way. Everyone is tolerant. This strikes me as reasonable. It strikes PdV as oppressive. Hence the dilemma we’re in.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 8, 2012 at 21:23 pm

    Hayibo Dm,

    “Everyone is tolerant.”

    And you scuttled away from Kenya because …???

  • Dmwangi

    Their are genuine insights in Marx that echo ATR. However, there are huge incompatibilities:

    1) Marxism presumes conflict. ATR is very concerned with consensus and cooperation.

    2) Marxism thinks of man as homo economicus. ATR sees man as a spiritual creature with a life force that is actualised in and through others.

    3) Marxism believes in dialectical materialism. ATR has various eschatologies but all are fundamentally different from the economic meta-narrative.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 8, 2012 at 21:39 pm

    Interesting stuff!

    Reminds me of Thabo Mbeki’s speech, hailed as one of the greatest ever.

    I am an African.

    I owe my being to the hills and the valleys, the mountains and the glades, the rivers, the deserts, the trees, the flowers, the seas and the ever-changing seasons that define the face of our native land.

    Zuma on the other hand, with equal greatness, asked What is a crook?

    Then he fired Mbeki’s ass!

    My favourite though, thanks to you, is our African father, Idi Amin Dada I want your heart. I want to eat your children.

    It’s called tolerance, Maggs Dmwangi!.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
  • Brett Nortje

    Dmwangi says:
    December 8, 2012 at 18:38 pm

    I wouldn’t have said I’m nostalgic for Apartheid although roughly 5000 murders a year compares quite well to 500 000 in 18 years, and b) who would ever have thunk deaths in detention under democracy would by far outstrip deaths in detention during Apartheid?

    I’m not easily given to ‘group’ thinking and my late-found desire for a two-state solution has a lot to do with the murder of 68 000 people who look like me and talk like me, overwhelmingly by black perpetrators, and yes, by the fact that Genocuidewatch has pegged SOuth Africa at Stage 6 of genocide twice now.

    So, you can see, it is a desperate means of trying to ensure the survival of my family.

    We could have been living in a completely different country if, instead of trying to protect black land-holdership through the 1913 Land Act by requiring special permission before whites could acquire land in black areas to avoid people putting themselves out of house and home for trinkets the chiefs had got a kick in the pants, the tribal trusts were surveyed and the land distributed among the people living on it per capita.

  • Blue Ozone

    Dmwangi
    December 8, 2012 at 21:39 pm

    “Their are genuine insights in Marx that echo ATR. However, there are huge incompatibilities:”

    Well then ATR is more in agreement with Christian Socialist Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Socialist_Movement and related developments like with “Catholic Teaching” as reported here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20154986.

    Then Solidariteit too claims to be a “trade union within the Christian tradition of unionism”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28South_African_trade_union%29

    What we all seem to be saying that Marxism wasn’t a failure, but rather that its lack of a spiritual dimension is essentially incompatible with the human psyche.

  • Blue Ozone

    Dmwangi
    December 8, 2012 at 21:39 pm

    “Their are genuine insights in Marx that echo ATR. However, there are huge incompatibilities:”

    Well then ATR is more in agreement with Christian Socialist Movement and related developments with “Catholic Teaching” as reported here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20154986.

    Then Solidariteit too claims to be a “trade union within the Christian tradition of unionism”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28South_African_trade_union%29

    What we all seem to be saying that Marxism wasn’t a failure, but rather that its lack of a spiritual dimension is essentially incompatible with the human psyche.

  • Blue Ozone

    Here is even a better link for you maggs.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdopMqrftXs

  • Brett Nortje

    Which dimwit is claiming Marxism hasn’t been a failure everywhere it has been experimented with?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    December 8, 2012 at 23:55 pm

    Thanks!

  • Dmwangi

    …’the tribal trusts were surveyed and the land distributed among the people living on it per capita.’

    That strikes me as… reasonable. But it seems a far cry from what you were implying earlier.

    Anyway, I agree that many of these chiefs were/are corrupt — as power tends to do. The idea then is to make these institutions more democratic as you transmit them into the future, not to abolish them. Although it is often portrayed as being anti-democratic, ATR is not. But I am in favour of making it as democratic as possible without interfering with the super ordinate, teleological goods internal to it. That is the heart of the democratic tradition and I think it is sound whether you’re talking about a corporation (democratise to the greatest extent possible without upsetting the super ordinate good of efficiency) or ATR or rugby or whatever.

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Dmwangi

    “Tolerance does not include being intolerant in the name of enforcing your view of tolerance.”

    Dmwangi, I would like to obtain clarity on your position. Is it:

    (a) That WHITISTS claim to espouse tolerance but, are in fact, intolerant of everything they do not like, or;

    (b) That universal intolerance is itself an incoherent ideal, because it must entail being intolerant of intolerance, or;

    (c) Something else?

  • Brett Nortje

    Not only were/are many of the chiefs corrupt in the sense of sponging up taxpayers money meant for development and social upliftment a lot of them are the interface for migrant labour.

    Want a wife? Go earn your Lobola on the mines.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 9, 2012 at 0:09 am

    DM,

    You are to doublespeak what Houdini was to escape!

    These so-called “institutions” have been established on anti-democratic, anti-human rights ideology.

    How the heck can these be “democratised’?

    “making it as democratic as possible” … 50 shades of democracy?????

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    Dmwangi, the more fervently I concur with you, the more you attribute to me the European universalism I so passionately despise. Could it be that there is something in the AFRICAN value system we both cherish that makes you flee my embrace?

  • Dmwangi

    @MO:

    A) Europeans pride themselves on being ‘open-minded’ and ‘tolerant.’ Yet, to take one example, they’ve made a big brouhaha about how Ugandan sexual ethics violate human rights and want to use sanctions and various international organisations to coerce them into adopting the European view. So I ask, where’s the tolerance? Where is the French tolerance for Muslims who may want to practice polygamy? To me, tolerance, by definition, means putting up with things you don’t agree with.

    In some countries it is even a crime to simply say out loud that homosexuality is immoral! And I have no doubt you and PdV support such free speech restrictions on ‘hate dpeech’ grounds. This, despite polling that shows 86% of S. Africans agree with the statement. Where is the tolerance for their beliefs? Instead you call 86% of your fellow citizens ‘homophobes’ and ‘haters.’

    Is this tolerance? Why can’t you tolerate your fellow citizens expressing their opinions and voting their most deeply held values? I am fine tolerating you and PdV publicly advocating and lobbying for policies that shock my conscience and violate my most deeply held convictions. Is it too much to expect the same in return?????

  • Blue Ozone

    Dmwangi
    December 9, 2012 at 0:09 am

    “The idea then is to make these institutions more democratic as you transmit them into the future, not to abolish them. Although it is often portrayed as being anti-democratic, ATR is not. But I am in favour of making it as democratic as possible without interfering with the super ordinate, teleological goods internal to it.”

    I agree with this.

  • Brett Nortje

    Dmwangi says:
    December 9, 2012 at 0:50 am

    “Europeans pride themselves on being ‘open-minded’ and ‘tolerant.’ Yet, to take one example, they’ve made a big brouhaha about how Ugandan sexual ethics violate human rights and want to use sanctions and various international organisations to coerce them into adopting the European view.”

    Aren’t they the world’s biggest busibodies?

    They did the same thing with slavery.

  • Dmwangi

    Yep. A few white countries abolished slavery after profiting from it for four hundred years, while then proceeding to colonise these countries for an additional hundred fifty years. Unimpressive.

    But what do you suppose would’ve happened if Africans would have invaded Europe and bestowed the gift of religious liberty on Europeans during the 30 years war? Would they have been thanked?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 9, 2012 at 8:54 am

    Hey Dm,

    “But what do you suppose would’ve happened if Africans would have invaded Europe”.

    Got news for you – Africans did invade Europe, and the rest of the planet too.

    According to the best science available today it seems that modern humans emerged in Africa and, like you, traveled the world and populated it too.

    But since me and you don’t believe that nonsense stuff, some Jehovah’s Witnesses guys told me that Adam and Eve were conceived in, would you believe it, the Michelangelo Towers in Sandton!

  • Dmwangi

    @Brett:

    Should guys in Iraq be thanking George Bush for invading and colonising them in order to ‘gift’ them ‘democracy?’

  • Dmwangi

    @Brett:

    Maybe NATO can invade Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and South America and ‘gift’ all of us ‘democracy,’ ‘homosexual’ and ‘reproductive rights.’

    I’m sure it will be met with open-arms and gratitude. Just as these countries would be eternally grateful if we invaded and imposed Ubuntu on them.

  • Brett Nortje

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go! says:
    December 9, 2012 at 9:04 am
    “But what do you suppose would’ve happened if Africans would have invaded Europe”.

    “Got news for you – Africans did invade Europe”

    Yes, as economic refugees, Maggs, from their own failing states. Yesterday.

  • Brett Nortje

    Would you address the greater point Mwangi is making though, Maggs?

    People are always trying to force their world view on someone else (it seems it does not mean much otherwise) and it usually ends in tears.

  • Brett Nortje

    Which brings me to the point I made to OBS the other day when he accused me of trying to impose individual ownership on women in the tribal areas.

    Of course, the point he makes is overwhelming. Everyone is always ‘telling’. No-one is listening. My counter to him was to ask if anyone had ever asked those women if they wanted something different.

    The DA is talking about a write-in referendum in Gauteng. Under S84(g) of the Constitution the President has the power to call a referendum.

    Have you seen it used? Even once?

    Yes, I do know everyone in the ANC is bone idle….

  • Blue Ozone

    Dmwangi
    December 9, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Dmwangi – as we speak whole families are being exterminated by USA/UK automated drones and people are still being held in detention without trail for decades at places like Guantanamo Bay. There is an deafening silence about this?

    The same type of people then bring up the issue of “human rights” as a motivation for committing the above atrocities in online discussions? Then we have the socalled New Atheists who preach a new liberal form of fascism – much as we had European superpowers bringing “civilisation” to the world during colonialism. The White man’s burden seems to be getting heavier all the time.

    Underlying all of this is an elitist, Western hatred of and antagonism towards the bulk of humanity and everything that can be seen as part of the human experience – I refer to the great new heroes of the Western Left i.e. Dawkins /Hitchens.

    “The inhumanity of the new atheism is best illustrated by its move from the world of social critique into the realm of sociobiology. Some new atheists believe humans must be genetically predisposed to believing in a higher being. Marx and others saw religion as the product of socioeconomic circumstances, and thus believed that religion would wither away as humanity proceeded along the path of progress. New atheists see religious belief as a kind of animalistic instinct, driven by DNA. Where Marx viewed people’s turn towards religion as an understandable response to the harsh reality of alienation in capitalist society, new atheists see it as the product of mankind’s twisted genetic makeup.

    So what is their solution? Mass genetic therapy? Compulsory injections of the correct DNA – you know, the kind possessed by intelligent and well-bred people who can see through religious delusion? The new atheists’ abandonment of a social outlook leads them to adopt some very grim, anti-human views.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/30/thenewatheism

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Brett Nortje
    December 9, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Hey G,

    “Would you address the greater point Mwangi is making though, Maggs?”

    LOL – Dmwangi is incapable of making a greater point. He’s just daft.

    He’s incapable of understanding that despite his submission that 86% of South Africans have reservations around homosexuality that South Africans overwhelmingly endorse our Bill of Rights and have outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    He’s just a turd who ran away like a sneaky rat from Kenya where he claims the powers that be wanted to kill him (hahahaha), settled here in the world’s most respected democracy and tries to impose his intellectual, ideological and philosophical backwardness.

    Being the wonderful people that we are, we won’t suggest that he fuck off back to Kenya or Uganda if he does not like our view – we will (like we did with many other despots) encourage him to adjust to living in a Constitutional Democracy!

  • Blue Ozone

    Brett Nortje
    December 9, 2012 at 10:09 am

    That is a fair comment. Now the right thing to do is allow the traditional leaders to understand the value of having a referendum amongst rural women without insulting their culture, their very being and narrowly focussing on those aspects that you as I don’t know what (Westerner, White man, Afrikaner, Boer?) find hard to reconcilable with your understanding of human rights.

    And while we are at it, how about a referendum in the Western Cape among farm workers many still enslaved in a paternalistic, feudal relationship with the [mostly] white “baas”. Ask them if they would love to have a meaningful, share of that land – even if it meant a collective or customary title.

  • Michael Osborne

    @ MDF et Maggs

    Well done on engaging so engaging so intelligently (“turd”, “rat”), with Dmwangi.

    But Dmwangi, I disagree with your suggestion that all and every colonialist or imperialist imposition is to be deplored. So yes, to answer you hypothetical question, I am not convinced it would have been a world-historic disaster had Africans (or, more realistically, the Turks), invaded Europe and stopped the religious wars of the 16th Century.

    Consider also: After 800 AD North Africans colonized much of Spain. They established a regime that was, for many years, more tolerant and prosperous than anything in Europe at the time. Now I am sure Christian Spaniards did not welcome the Muslims any more than the people of Baghdad embraced US marines in 2003. But can we really say that the occupation of Spain by African for 500 year was a terribly bad thing?

  • Blue Ozone

    The White man’s burden (part 312)

    The more things change the more they stay the same.

    “The historians made comparisons to the “imperial air policing” carried out by British planes between the world wars.

    The letter said: “Although the claim is made that vanguard ‘smart’ weapons are accurate and discriminatory, the available evidence suggests that neither of these propositions is remotely possible given the nature of the attacks and the vulnerability of the unprotected neighbourhoods in which they are made.

    “Indeed, they seem little different in effect from the ‘imperial air policing’ carried out in the selfsame areas by small groups of low-flying British aircraft between the world wars.

    “They are also likely to be as unproductive as these earlier raids.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9728980/War-historians-British-drones-put-our-countrys-image-at-risk.html

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Brett

    “I wouldn’t have said I’m nostalgic for Apartheid”

    Me neither. I could never be nostalgic for a system that was fundamentally UNCHRISTIAN.

    This is notwithstanding that I now consider myself a “Dead Again” Christian.

    Thanks.

  • Blue Ozone

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    December 9, 2012 at 11:18 am

    “I wouldn’t have said I’m nostalgic for Apartheid”

    But you are not entirely honest when you engage with Brett’s apparent nostalgia for Apartheid. He made it quite clear when he posted the following.

    “So, you can see, it is a desperate means of trying to ensure the survival of my family.”

    Also read my comments about a “more rigid” application of AA/BEE during the next what, 1000 years? What options does Brett then have since he has inherited a natural and twisted mean streak in his DNA i.e. a to be concerned about the future and well being of his own family?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Michael Osborne
    December 9, 2012 at 11:06 am

    LOL Prof MO,

    “Well done on engaging so (“turd”, “rat”), with Dmwangi.”

    Maybe you want to rethink that.

    I’m rather fond of and respect you a lot, so I suggest that you pick your battles more carefully.

    Dmwangi is not going to piss on the graves of our most revered liberation activists and get away with it.

    He’s certainly not going to get treated with any dignity from my end.

    And if you want to jump into the sewerage pit (that he’s creating for himself) to rescue him, it will be most unfortunate.

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    December 9, 2012 at 11:33 am

    Have you contacted your “revered liberation activists” yet to help solve the abject poverty, tribalism and religious backwardness of the 1,1 billion Indians? Perhaps systematic extermination by USA/UK drone?

    “Second, in view of terrorist attacks, as in the case of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the continued insurgency in Kashmir and heightened Naxalite activities, the top brass feels it crucial that the Indian armed forces strengthen their surveillance abilities across the western frontier, in the Maoist-affected states of central India and along India’s extensive coastline. Having received flak for an inept internal security apparatus, the government plans to strengthen such arrangements, and the use of drones has become a hallmark of anti-’terrorist’ operations ever since the US began to use the technology in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

    http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/379.html

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    December 9, 2012 at 11:47 am

    Hey Blue Boy,

    Not to worry, it’s all under control in India.

    Since your comment our population has increased from 1,1 billion to 1.389 billion, but has since fallen to 1.289 billion as a result of the “systematic extermination by USA/UK drone” – but we’re still on the plus side so it’s ok.

    Just to remind you, prior to 1948, Indians had ZERO wealth – WHITE people stole everything.

    In fact Gandhi was so poor he could not afford a slave to clean his toilet, so he beat his wife up and made her do it.

    Now of course India is the on the up – 10th or 11th in world terms?

    By 2050 it is expected to be #3 (http://www.businessinsider.com/these-economies-will-dominate-the-world-in-2050-2012-1?op=1)

    So we needn’t invoke the spirits of fallen revolutionaries to save them.

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    December 9, 2012 at 11:57 am

    “Just to remind you, prior to 1948, Indians had ZERO wealth –”

    So what has changed then?

    “Seventy-five percent of India’s population lives in rural poverty, which results in a stagnated economy and drives people to move to the city. Farming depends on the monsoon rains. A typical farmer feeds and clothes a family of four on $2 per day. Some families keep silk worms as a means of earning extra income but the yield is unreliable and poverty drives many farmers to suicide. Typical villages lack basic services, communications and infrastructure, resulting in a stagnated rural economy which is driving many families to move to cities.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/poverty-in-india-rural-urban-migration/3210.html

    but the Indian government can afford to invest in drone technology to help curb the Maoist (CPI) “terrorist” problem?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    December 9, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    Blue Boy,

    Myself I prefer to go with Charles Dickens to solve the problems which India faces.

    I wish I were Commander in Chief over there [India]! I would address that Oriental character which must be powerfully spoken to, in something like the following placard, which should be vigorously translated into all native dialects,“ I, The Inimitable, holding this office of mine, and firmly believing that I hold it by the permission of Heaven and not by the appointment of Satan, have the honor to inform you Hindoo gentry that it is my intention, with all possible avoidance of unnecessary cruelty and with all merciful swiftness of execution, to exterminate the Race from the face of the earth, which disfigured the earth with the late abominable atrocities …

    http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/16789-charles-dickens.html

  • Blue Ozone

    That is a very interesting yet sad story, maggs.

    “Yet the 1757-1947 Indian Holocaust and the 1942-1945 Bengali Holocaust have been whitewashed from British history – thus, for example, there is absolutely no mention of these enormous atrocities in recent Anglo histories such as “The Story of India” by Michael Wood”

    But fortunately it wasn’t labelled a “crime against humanity” as for example perpetuated by the evil Apartheid regime.

    Just compare the notes kept – by Anglo American CEO Cynthia Carroll, Anglo America being the passionate liberation fighters that they have become:

    “The violence we have seen in the mining sector this year has its seeds in the legacy of apartheid and the underlying social problems that remain,” she said during a discussion at the Gordon Institute of Business Science in Johannesburg.

    “The curse of unemployment means that mine workers often have many other people who are economically dependent on them.”

    Carroll said the history of the migrant labour system loosened the bonds of family life and dislocated communities”

    http://www.iol.co.za/business/business-news/apartheid-behind-mine-violence-carroll-1.1435544

  • Blue Ozone

    “Some families keep silk worms as a means of earning extra income”

    so maggs. There is something we can learn from you Indians, a wonderful plan for Brett and myself’s family fortune – SILK WORMS.

    But do you think the South African government will in the near future insist that us privileged WHITES must also share our silk worms in linear proportion to our demographic representativity?

  • Blue Ozone

    We can even have a silkworm braai!

    “Roast the silkworms. Roasting them gives them a crunchy texture. Place them on a baking sheet and place them in an oven that has been preheated to 400 degrees Fahrenheit. Roast them for at least 10 minutes. The longer you roast them, the crunchier they will be.”

    Read more: How to Eat Silkworms | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_6789974_eat-silkworms.html#ixzz2EYBKKTrL

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    December 9, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Blue Boy,

    I agree with Carroll that “(t)he violence we have seen in the mining sector this year has its seeds in the legacy of apartheid and the underlying social problems that remain”.

    As Barry Gilder note in his book, many if not most cadres of the revolution have been co-opted into the trappings of wealth and power to perpetuate the apartheid iniquity and inequity.

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    December 9, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Oh _ I see. It is not just a brutal capitalist system perpetuated as is the case in India. It is that thingy called “apartheid”.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    December 9, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    Blue Boy,

    The systemic and structural entrenchment of anti-human rights ideology espoused by the traditional leaders is a direct consequence of apartheid.

    So too is the fact that farm workers are in the post-slavery 21 st century post-apartheid South Africa, being paid R70 per day.

    It too informs the mindset that allows political leaders to call South Africans refugees in their own country.

    Read if you will Redi Thlabi’s “Endings & Beginnings” to see the impact of that iniquity as it affects our present day in the “cesspools of cheap labour”.

    It’s going to be many generations before the impact of apartheid is sufficiently diluted.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Maggs

    “The systemic and structural entrenchment of anti-human rights ideology espoused by the traditional leaders is a direct consequence of apartheid.”

    Maggs is right. That is why the traditional leadership and customary law one finds in places like Zambia, Kenya and Nigeria are so pro-human rights by comparison!

    Thanks.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
    December 9, 2012 at 14:00 pm

    Dworky,

    You know about Kenya????

    Did you attend Dmwangi’s weekend courses in Milpark H/I?

    Did you “both cherish” and did he “flee [your] embrace”?

  • ozoneblue

    @maggs

    Im sorry but that is just bullshit
    . Nbody is stupid enough to believe that kak anymore. Everything is the fault of apartheid. Ad nausea ad infinitum. Just dont cut ice nomore. And we will call you on it now.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    ozoneblue
    December 9, 2012 at 14:31 pm

    Blue Boy,

    “And we will call you on it now.”

    I look forward to that.

    Do say (coherently that is) which part you disagree with and why!

  • Dmwangi

    @MO:

    ‘But Dmwangi, I disagree with your suggestion that all and every colonialist or imperialist imposition is to be deplored.’

    I think you’re setting a dangerous precedent. On what basis then, do we distinguish between just and unjust colonialist imperialism? Is it okay so long as it’s in the name of a good cause???

    ‘Now I am sure Christian Spaniards did not welcome the Muslims any more than the people of Baghdad embraced US marines in 2003′

    This is the salient point. These ppl have as much right to self-govern as anyone else, so while African rule in Spain may have been better from your point of view or from that of the North African Muslims, it may not have been from the perspective of those they were lording over. So it’s my position that we must never impose our beliefs on other cultures/peoples, even in cases where we paternalistically believe that doing so would leave those peoples better off. We must respect them, and their agency, enough to let them decide for themselves how they want to be governed.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Eish.

    Bloody assholes!

    A lamb to the slaughter

    December 9 2012 at 04:20pm
    By Nompilo Mchunu

    KwaZulu-Natal – A middle-aged Shembe man’s insistence on taking a 14-year-old as his bride after her older sister reneged on the terms of an arranged marriage with him, resulted in the 14-year-old being “rescued” by social workers after a relative tipped off the police.

    Now the girl’s family are facing ruin after the jilted bridegroom demanded the return of his lobolo. …

    “Then the man pointed at our younger daughter and said: ‘I will take her for my wife instead.’ We did not want to do it, because we know it is wrong, but we did not have any other way to make right what had been done.”

    Philisiwe Gumede, the 14-year-old’s aunt, said the lobolo delegates’ demands were “beyond ridiculous”.

    “How could we give away a 14-year-old? After this, I have seen it all in this world. When we initially refused, the man said he would speak to the girl himself. We convinced her to refuse his proposal, but the pressure from church leaders was too much, and we couldn’t pay back the lobolo in cash as he demanded.”

    http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/a-lamb-to-the-slaughter-1.1437901#.UMSoTKw2eVo

  • Blue Ozone

    Dmwangi
    December 9, 2012 at 16:37 pm

    “I think you’re setting a dangerous precedent. On what basis then, do we distinguish between just and unjust colonialist imperialism?”

    That is a real easy one to figure out, Dmwangi. “Just colonialism” can only be conducted by the pax Anglo/America.

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    December 9, 2012 at 14:15 pm

    I’m not going to waste to much time. I rather refer to mfd post at December 9, 2012 at 14:00 pm that points out the ludicrously of your argument.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    December 9, 2012 at 18:16 pm

    Blue Boy,

    “I rather refer to mfd post at December 9, 2012 at 14:00 pm that points out the ludicrously of your argument.”

    As expected.

    Dworky’s response reveals the traditional but demeaning view that all African people look, think, feel, act the same – these Blacks are all the same.

    So what happens in Kenya and China will pretty much predict what happens in Limpopo.

    Therefore expect piracy along our shoreline soon as is happening along the Somali coastline.

    Some guys bonk goats in Mozambique therefore all Africans everywhere bonk goats.

    And and and.

    Thanks for the insight Dworky!

  • Lisbeth

    “Being the wonderful people that we are, we won’t suggest that [Dmwangi] fuck off back to Kenya …”

    Well, I would. Suggest it, that is, if I may. Even if that makes me a non-wonderful person.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Lisbeth
    December 9, 2012 at 18:48 pm

    Lisbeth,

    “Even if that makes me a non-wonderful person.”

    Not to worry, you don’t count because as DMwangi wisely noted “your numerical acumen is limited”!

  • Dmwangi

    @Lisbeth:

    No worries, sisi. Soon as my kids go off to uni I’ll convince the Queen it’s time to retire to Mombasa. But what will you do with the 86% of South Africans who agree with my position? Deport them? send them to ‘re-education camps?’

    If you weren’t so insular and spent less time with LGBTQ white feminists, you might soon realise how minority your is.

    http://features.pewforum.org/africa/question.php?q=16

  • Blue Ozone

    Dmwangi
    December 9, 2012 at 19:31 pm

    “But what will you do with the 86% of South Africans who agree with my position? Deport them? send them to ‘re-education camps?”

    Dmwangi please don’t mention antiquated concepts like “democracy” on this Anglo-American sponsored “constitutional” forum.

    kind regards.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 9, 2012 at 19:31 pm

    LOL!

    “But what will you do with the 86% of South Africans who agree with my position?”

    So it’s YOUR POSITION that South Africans agree with, eh!

    What was their view before you came here with that graduate degree which impresses WHITE people (and also as you imply, impresses Black people too)?

  • Dmwangi

    You’re right, Maggs.

    I should have said “…what will you do with the 86% of South Africans who think homosexuality is immoral and with whom I agree?”

    Thanks!

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 9, 2012 at 19:51 pm

    Dm,

    What do you think would have been the overwhelming response if South Africans were to be asked the following question?

    “Should there be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation”?

    Bear in mind two things as you formulate your response.

    Firstly let’s not bother what people in other countries on the continent may feel, especially in the context of Dworky’s rather condescending and patronising comment earlier.

    Secondly and most importantly, consider that South Africans overwhelmingly endorsed our Bill of Rights in which equality is paramount.

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    December 9, 2012 at 20:15 pm

    “Bill of Rights in which equality is paramount”

    I’m sorry maggs but no “Bill of Rights” can legislate “equality”. Equality can only be achieved in a progressive state with an accompanying “Bill of Duties”!

    Where the sum of the individual is determined by both.

  • Blue Ozone

    “Article 59. Citizens’ exercise of their rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of their duties and obligations.

    Citizens of the USSR are obliged to observe the Constitution of the USSR and Soviet laws, comply with the standards of socialist conduct, and uphold the honour and dignity of Soviet citizenship.

    Article 60. It is the duty of, and matter of honour for, every able-bodied citizen of the USSR to work conscientiously in his chosen, socially useful occupation, and strictly to observe labour discipline. Evasion of socially useful work is incompatible with the principles of socialist society.”

    http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html#chap06

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    December 9, 2012 at 20:26 pm

    Blue Boy,

    The notion of a “Bill of Duties” is silly – the only “duty” people in South Africa have is not to get caught falling foul of the law.

    Those ordinary people who do get caught outside the law face the consequences (unless they are highly placed or connected that is, in which case #SpyTapes magically appear to rescue them).

    You’re clearly not in touch with modern day South Africa where equality is legislated and is constitutionally enshrined – any other view is irrelevant.

  • Dmwangi

    Depends what you consider discrimination.

    Put gay marriage or teaching homo curricula to kids to a popular vote, both go down by 80%.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 9, 2012 at 20:46 pm

    DM,

    “Depends what you consider discrimination.”

    You’re being evasive.

    It’s a pretty straight forward test.

    If the question is :

    “Should there be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation”?

    what, in your view, would the overwhelming response from South Africans be?

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    December 9, 2012 at 20:45 pm

    “The notion of a “Bill of Duties” is silly – the only “duty” people in South Africa have is not to get caught falling foul of the law.”

    I’m sorry boet but that is more unadulterated bullshit emanating from yourself.

  • Blue Ozone

    I say this once. Everybody are born unequal.

    A constitution creates equal “playing fields” but it can an never should legislate an outcome.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    December 9, 2012 at 20:59 pm

    LOL Blue Boy,

    You disagree with me, then you say (albeit in a more convoluted way) the same thing I said.

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    December 9, 2012 at 21:08 pm

    but maggs – but do you honestly believe that all those stealing and wheeling and dealing fixated on selfish gains both in the public and private sector are in touch with Article 60:

    “It is the duty of, and *matter of honour for*,…” [in the name of the Republic of South Africa?]

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Blue Ozone
    December 9, 2012 at 21:48 pm

    B;ue Boy,

    You’re as confused as Dworky (and Dmwangi).

    This is South Africa – what people in other countries do is up to them.

    We’re talking equality in South Africa and my question to Dmwangi stands.

    We have already spoken to this as per our BOR – that’s why Pierre says “that most traditional leaders are not completely supportive of democratic rule and are enthusiastic supporters of discrimination on the basis of sex, gender and sexual orientation” are “caught in a colonial time warp”!

  • Blue Ozone

    Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!
    December 9, 2012 at 22:17 pm

    “This is South Africa – what people in other countries do is up to them.”

    I’m sorry, but like most of your contributions in here that is totally irrational, unscientific, bizarre bullshit. Where is the rationality, logic and reason one would expect from an Atheist?

  • Blue Ozone

    Dedication to maggs:

    The professional black:

    JACOB DLAMINI: Manyi and his ilk bring SA nothing but shame

    http://www.bdlive.co.za/articles/2011/03/10/jacob-dlamini-manyi-and-his-ilk-bring-sa-nothing-but-shame

    “Professional blacks are anti-intellectual by definition. They cannot be honest about the political and economic history of SA without abandoning their bad-faith politics. They believe, in bad faith …”

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Maggs

    “Dworky’s response reveals the traditional but demeaning view that all African people look, think, feel, act the same”

    With respect, Maggs, your response reflects the traditional but demeaning RACIST view that Africans are unable to respond in a coherent and united fashion when faced with COLONIAL depredation.

    Thanks.

  • Michael Osborne

    Dmwangi, I do not think your absolutism is defensible. The notion of “self-government” is all very well if one can assumes that people are, in fact, governing themselves. But what if there is no evidence that any kind of “self-government” is taking place?

    To deem any foreign intervention ipso facto illegitimate is a boon to any dictator who sets himself up in power, violently crushes all dissent, then decries any foreign assistance to his victims as unlawful interference in domestic affirms. Indeed, attempts by the outside world to undermine apartheid, through support for armed resistance, or through embargoes, diplomatic sanctions, etc, were resisted by Pretoria on the basis that the UN Charter’s principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs was being violated.

    Granted, liberal internationalism has been misused to justify “regime change” that has little to do with the welfare of victims of domestic repression. There is, as you suggest, a slippery-slope problem here. But to respond to abuses by viewing nation-states as sacrosanct units entails sanctioning the status quo, whatever that may be. I don’t think that is satisfactory

  • Dmwangi

    @MO:

    No, Michael. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You do not have a right to invade and/or colonise another people because you believe doing so will leave them better off.

    That said, I agree with this:

    ‘ then decries any foreign assistance to his victims as unlawful interference in domestic affirms.’

    If by foreign assistance, you simply mean empowering others to achieve their own goals, fine. But you do not get to define those goals for them or invade and use ‘fighting on behalf of others’ as the pretext.

    All human beings have a right of free association. Therefore, if a group of citizens from country A requests the ‘assistance’ of those from country B, I have no problem with that. Though country B may want to consider that providing said support could result in diplomatic or other adverse responses from other citizens of country A who are opposed to the goals of the group requesting foreign support.

    So if SA citizens want to assist the Palestinians in their battle against apartheid, that is legitimate. But it would not be legitimate for SA to invade and occupy in the name of liberating Arabs. We can provide help but no people can fight another’s battles. If Syrians are being slaughtered, and they request country A’s support, they may give them material and diplomatic aid, perhaps even arms. But the Syrians must fight for their own freedom- as SA, Kenyans, Zimbabweans, etc. did.

    And if the West wants to take up for the homosexuals in Uganda at their behest, through non-interventionist means, that is their prerogative. My point is that it creates backlash amongst the majorities in these countries the same way it would if Ugandans started meddling in the domestic policies of the U.S. Read Kishore Mahbubahni. Homosexuals are treated worse in Saudi Arabia than in Uganda but yet these countries say nothing. Why? Saudi has oil. they figured out that if you want to have allies and workable relations with other states you cannot run around dictating to them what domestic policies they should enact.

    I wish Western countries would practice this with non- petrol states as well. As I said earlier, European universalism’s inability to accept that some places in the world have traditions/beliefs that do it differently from them has caused more colonising, conquest, empire, raping, pillaging and conflict than probably any idea yet to date.

  • Blue Ozone

    Michael Osborne
    December 9, 2012 at 23:34 pm

    “To deem any foreign intervention ipso facto illegitimate is a boon to any dictator who sets himself up in power, violently crushes all dissent, then decries any foreign assistance to his victims as unlawful interference in domestic affirms. Indeed, attempts by the outside world to undermine apartheid, through support for armed resistance, or through embargoes, diplomatic sanctions, etc, were resisted by Pretoria on the basis that the UN Charter’s principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs was being violated.”

    Hey Michael. A slippery slide indeed because as I recall at the time Pretoria was arguing that Africans were “not ready” to govern the larger part of South Africa because they haven’t developed a good enough understanding of Western democratic values and human rights yet. Therefore they introduced a system where Africans “could govern themsleves” in the bantustans. And they were indeed correct because at the time there were not a single example of a democratic African state that adhered to the UN human rights doctrine. Interesting that even now on this thread there are many white liberals who on one hand detest Apartheid but are essentially saying the same thing i.e. African values are unacceptable to them and must be reformed in line with a very Eurocentric constitution.

    The irony and the hypocrisy in there is absolutely breathtaking.

  • Brett Nortje
  • Zoo Keeper

    Dmwangi

    No-one goes to war for another country unless there are significant benefits for the warring party. Nobody really believes the Yanks could care less about Iraqis. Saddam was fine until he threatened vested interests in the region. But the US was never going to sanction the risking of US lives so that certain well-connected companies could get great contracts and earn huge amounts of cash!

    You are right about non-petrol states being left to their own troubles. Its not worth helping them out. Human rights is used as a pretext, but the Real Politik of the situation is the truth. That’s why no-one is rushing to “help” Zimbabweans. Also, no-one is rushing to establish human rights in Saudi Arabia because they pay off those who count, and can therefore do as they wish. So there’ll be some whining about Ugandan gay rights, until they strike oil…

    The evangelistic cultural invasions are damaging and have caused huge strife and damage – like the Conquistadors did in south and central America; but more often than not they are a by-product of a much bigger picture. Even the Conquistadors were there for gold, the missionaries who destroyed much of the existing culture were appendages.

    So you are right, no-one has the right to invade another country to “help them”. But it is more the case that the invasion is strategically important and beneficial to the invader, and the “help them” line is a pretext for the real purpose.

    I would also be upset if some unwashed hairy-armpit hippie tried to tell me how to live.

    Brett’s been fighting the “I know what’s best for you” of hippies for years so you’re not alone there.

    In fact, I’d go so far as to state that there is nothing more deleterous of freedom than the “I’m doing this because its best for you” brigade!

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Zoo Keeper
    December 10, 2012 at 9:31 am

    LOL ZooKy,

    “I would also be upset if some unwashed hairy-armpit hippie tried to tell me how to live.”

    Dmwangi may be trying to tell South Africans how they should live, but I doubt that he is “some unwashed hairy-armpit hippie”!

    :P

  • Blue Ozone

    Brett Nortje
    December 10, 2012 at 9:07 am

    “There was also the worry of a resurgence of ethnic politics, and – given his support from the left – that Zuma’s leftist advisers would undo all the meticulous stitching of South Africa into the global economy that Mbeki and his economic managers had undertaken over 15 years.”

    LOL. I thought all of ANC policy and the entire NDR was based on categorising South Africans into WHITES, COLOUREDS, INDIANS and AFRICANS. But now it is Zuma who plays “ethnic politics”.

    Really?

  • Brett Nortje
  • Gwebecimele
  • Brett Nortje

    http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=346017&sn=Detail&pid=71616

    Why are 40 crime intelligence officers being deployed to Mangaung? – DA
    Dianne Kohler Barnard
    09 December 2012

    Dianne Kohler Barnard says reports indicate that agents may be spying on anti-Zuma delegates

    Mission Mangaung: illegitimate use of the Crime Intelligence Unit

    City Press reports today that 40 crime intelligence agents have been sent on a mission to Mangaung ahead of the ANC’s elective conference next weekend. This looks to be an abuse of the state-funded unit in support of President Jacob Zuma’s campaign for the ANC leadership.

    The Crime Intelligence Unit’s core mandate is to “contribute to the neutralising of crime by gathering, collating and analysing intelligence that leads to an actionable policing activity”.

    Unless the unit is expecting some major criminal activity to occur at Mangaung, the DA cannot fathom why there is a need to take 40 intelligence officers off their normal duties to a party political conference rather than focussing on the real crime challenges affecting South Africa.

    The unit will not be there to ensure the safety of dignitaries – as this is taken care of by the police’s VIP protection unit.

    The fact that the Acting Head of Crime Intelligence, Major-General Chris Ngcobo is a known Zuma loyalist as is Colonel Nkosana Ximba, who will be heading up the operation, supports the premise that President Zuma is using his allies in the police service for political gain.

    Reports already indicate that agents involved in the “mission” have been gathering data on delegates who voted against Zuma in the ANC’s regional conferences.

    We cannot see any legitimate reason for the deployment of 40 crime intelligence agents to Mangaung or indeed any legitimate reason for state intelligence personnel to spy on political rivals rather than on crime bosses.

    I will be submitting parliamentary questions to determine:

    o who ordered this mission;
    o what was its purpose; and
    o how much it will cost the public?
    Government leaders cannot be allowed to deploy SAPS resources to fight their political battles.

    Statement issued by Dianne Kohler Barnard MP, DA Shadow Minister of Police, December 9 2012

  • Gwebecimele

    Look who is about to save us from ourselves. These are the fellows who sometimes derive excessive profits from the poor on behalf of the rich. Majority of them can’t even stand on their own.

    http://www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-political-economy/building-a-winning-nation

  • Olds

    Dmwangi
    I’ve been following this debate the whole weekend and like a good teagirl didn’t speak out but simply now mus ask some questions.

    If I do not know who to vote for since my education never included politics and philosophy will the chief be able to advise me who to vote for? It seems I am part of that really important 86% so it is important that I vote right.

    Further you say that “You do not have a right to invade and/or colonise another people because you believe doing so will leave them better off.” Do you just mean Michael and people like him or do you also include rapists who invade Lesbians to adjust them to Ubuntuism and babymaking?

    Will all those sperm donours who never become fathers because they dissapear as soon as they make a deposit also be invaded and adjusted, or will Ubuntu come to mean many, many more orphans, aids-infected or not, since a teagirl’s salary simply does not cover the results of that natural African fecundity which you seem to think is such a good thing and will keep us in power. (Who’s power?). It almost sounds like that bad old English king who said: if we cannot get them out, we’ll breed them out. Prima nocte is uckily not an option here since we’d simply be making more DA members.

    So I have free will and a democratic vote as long as I do and vote as the elders says?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Olds
    December 10, 2012 at 11:43 am

    Olds,

    Dmwangi is young and he will learn.

    In time he will get to understand the difference between a Constitutional Democracy and whatever it is that he is advocating.

    For example if ALL the people in South Africa want the death penalty, it will not be introduced until 12(1)(e) is amended to read “Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which EXCLUDES the right-not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way”.

    He’s evaded responding to my question December 9, 2012 at 20:50 pm, because he knows full well that the response is already included in our BoR.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Gwebecimele
    December 10, 2012 at 10:44 am

    LOL Gwebs,

    The NDP is not even a plan.

    Trevor Manuel was given some money to sit in a corner and do something, anything.

    Or as someone pointed out hereabouts – Manuel was NEUTERED!

    As I see it, Manuel has become utterly irrelevant – kinda like a state-sponsored oxygen-thief.

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Dmwangi

    “If Syrians are being slaughtered, and they request country A’s support, they may give them material and diplomatic aid, perhaps even arms.”

    1. Dmwangi, I am afraid that once you have conceded that arms supplies by outsiders to assist those resisting a tyrant may in some circumstances be acceptable, the camel’s nose in the tent, and there is no force of earth that will get him out. If one look at “sovereignty” as the right of a nation state not to have its fate determined by the use of force by outsiders, I do not see how arming proxy groups to fight a civil war is not a grave affront to sovereignty.

    2. Moreover, if you insist that only Syrians (defined as citizens?), can fight for their freedom, do you approve of the training and arming the Free Syria Army just across the Turkish border?

    3. What is your view of a trade blockade? (Many thousands of people died as a result of the West’s embargo of medicines etc to Iraq in 1990’s.) If it is not an invasion of sovereignty to cause mass death within a nation state, in order to achieve the objectives of a foreign power, I don’t know what is.

    4. Would you disapprove of “regime change” as applied to Germany by the Allies; Japan by the US; Cambodia by the Vietnamese; and Uganda by Tanzania/Kenya?

    5. Suppose Israel had invaded Syria in the 1990’s, within days ejected Assad senior, and installed a puppet regime. Would you held fast to your principle that no other country may militarily intervene to displace the new Israeli puppets? My point, of course, is that rigid non-intervention has the immunizing of freezing a fait accompli, no matter how illegitimate.

    6. Consider Angola in the 1980’s. SA undermined Luanda by funding MPLA and FNLA. Ultimately, SA invaded. Angola called in Cuban troops. Was it wrong of Cuba to accept the intervention?

    7. You say that intervention “creates a backlash.” That may be so. But this is no longer an argument of principle, but a prudential judgment that must be taken on a case by case basis. Consider sanctions against SA in the 1980’s. If anything, it may be said that there was a backlash against the countries that failed to join the trade embargo.

    8. You write: “I wish Western countries would practice [non-intervention] with non- petrol states as well.” Again, this is not an argument against intervention per se, but against selective, hypocritical or opportunistic intervention.

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Blue Ozone

    Please see my response above to Dmwangi.

  • Zoo Keeper

    MO and Dmwangi

    Either you intervene or you don’t.

    Is there a difference in principle between sanctions and armed intervention to achieve an outcome in another State? Same aims (generally) just different means.

    In which case, is the UN’s principle of non-interference inherently hypocritical because intervention is a hallmark of international politics? Surely the UN should drop the non-interference and set up a policy of interference instead?

    Intervention is done in the interests of the intervenor, not the intervened. Even when its an unwashed hairy-armpitted hippie who wants to make herself feel better about the situation.

  • Olds

    Thanks Maggs

    Does that mean he is not a traditional leader and we are not back in the Victorian era and I won’t have to trade in my BB for a cot and knee protectors yet?

    What a relief!

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Zoo Keeper

    “Either you intervene or you don’t.”

    I think it is a bit more complicated, in at least four respects. First, “intervention” covers a large spectrum, from diplomatic notes on the one end to invasion and occupation at the other end. Second, if one supports some form of intervention, it may be calibrated in light of the circumstances. Third, almost everyone would agree that forced “regime changed” in Tokyo in 1945 was justified. Fourth, the UN Charter’s principle of non-intervention is qualifiied in many ways, including in Ch 6 of the Charter itself, which contemplates Security Council action where a situation is a threat to international security.

  • Zoo Keeper

    MO

    Thanks, I was being a bit glib I confess!

    But as you rightly point out, intervention occurs on many levels. Indeed, one could argue that intervention, on some level, is practically unavoidable.

    It would be very difficult then to realistically espouse a notion of complete isolationism in international affairs. Could it be said that because of the multi-tiered intervention in place, non-interference is more hypothetical than real?

  • Olds

    Zoo Keeper

    Intervention works much like potential difference, the greater the difference in power between the interferee and interfered with, the more likely that it will happen and without repercussion. China is increasingly taking over from the USA in this respect, as their (monetary) power grows. Wether interference is right is another matter and quite divorced from reality.

  • Dmwangi

    @MO:

    We’re arguing from incompatible premises because you assumed I accept the Westphalian system and all of its related institutions. I do not. What the UN seems licit is unimportant.

    You want me to draw a bright metaphysical line delineating when it’s ‘right’ to intervene in another’s affairs and when it’s ‘wrong.’ This is simply impossible given our epistemic position and I defy you to try.

    But I’m sure you’d be pretty irate if Uganda militarily intervened to impose its views on European countries. Others might applaud and think it’s a wonderful thing. History may judge it well or bad but there is no way of knowing ex-ante. That very fact ought to engender a lot of humility since intervention is always, by definition, going to create or exacerbate conflict between peoples and we have no way of knowing if this additional conflict will be justified by the outcome.

    Zoo Keeper has essentially laid out my position: you may never intervene on *behalf* of another people. (I.e. you may assist them if you believe it’s in your interests, while of course claiming to act in theirs, but you may not intervene in terms of taking aggressive military action. Determining what constitutes aggression (e.g. Does a trade embargo qualify?) is just quibbling. It will be determined by the context of each given situation, what the balance of power is, etc. For my purposes, it is enough to say that ‘physical presence’ of foreign fighters in a country to fight another’s battles is always illegitimate.

    ‘ If one look at “sovereignty” as the right of a nation state not to have its fate determined by the use of force by outsiders, I do not see how arming proxy groups to fight a civil war is not a grave affront to sovereignty’

    Thus, its ‘fate’ may only be determined by Syrians fighting for their freedom, whether they use AK-47′s from Russia or M-16′s from America. Supplying weapons does not ‘determine the fate’ of a country. What the ppl receiving them do with them, does.

    Your example from WWII is also inapposite. The Allies were responding to aggression. One always has a right to counter military aggression with intervention.

    ’7. You say that intervention “creates a backlash.” That may be so. But this is no longer an argument of principle, but a prudential judgment that must be taken on a case by case basis’

    And one that should remain at the forefront of the minds’ of Western leaders who should be asking: What is our approval rating around the world? Why do terrorists want to harm our country? Will incessantly acting as the world’s bully and constable cause more harm than the good we believe we’re doing.

    Your other examples are irrelevant given the framework I’ve adumbrated.

    So to crystallise my view: everyone has the right to self-government. If they are being dispossessed of this right, they have the right to request assistance from anyone they choose if they believe it would be helpful. But outsiders (those not being denied the right) must not actually invade or physically fight on their behalf.

    Countries have the right to defend themselves (militarily intervene) in response to military aggression.

    Adherence to these basic principles alone would attenuate a lot of world conflict and if Western powers exercised more ‘prudential’ judgement in the fashion I mentioned we may even have a shot at some semblance of peace.

  • Michael Osborne

    Dwmangi, thank you for your considered response. I will respond in due course. In the meantime, I would be curious what you thought of the Cuban action in Angola in the late 80′s.

  • Dmwangi

    @Olds:

    Apparently your education didn’t include logic either.

    Believing homosexuality is immoral does not necessarily entail one believing corrective rape, or violence against gays is moral. Quite the contrary. Those who hold my position believe that it is, as the traditional leaders said, similar to an illness. We do not mistreat those with drug addiction. We show them compassion and try to provide them all the help and treatment available which they may then voluntarily avail themselves of.

    Try to temper your hysteria with rationalism next time. I had a hard time understanding what you’re on about.

    @Maggs:

    Define discrimination and I’ll answer your question.

  • Olds

    Dmwangi
    I would love to get a copy of that Thesaurus you use, it translates incredulity as hysteria.

    I notice that you have a problem with logic as well since you have no problem with equating the freedom to live as a you choose with living according to the will of the elders.

    The Constitution is quite clear on the subject of equal rights or are you going to claim it is also un-African?

  • Dmwangi

    @Olds:

    ‘…living according to the will of the elders.’

    You must have read this after applying your radical feminist hermeneutic. But please show where I actually said it.

    ‘Freedom to live as you choose…’ is a vacuous and meaningless statement. Are people free to choose to live as rapists, murderers, thieves? I suppose they are free to choose that life. But society is free to show opprobrium for these behaviours in various ways– incarceration, social stigma, social disapproval, etc.

    Who decides? Not the elders. Democratic majorities do. Welcome to self-governance.

  • Dmwangi

    @MO:

    ‘I would be curious what you thought of the Cuban action in Angola in the late 80′s.’

    If your own rights aren’t at stake, you don’t get to fight. That holds for all countries including Zaire and SA.

  • Olds

    You actually send me to consult with my traditional leaders many, many big words back which put me in a difficult position since I neither need nor have any traditional leaders on hand.

    Since I obviously follow the guidance of the Constitution any logical person would draw the conclusion that I meant ‘ freedom to live as you choose’ to mean that any lifestyle must still comply with the law. To then immediately assume that I am a feminist really puts my nose out of joint since I see no difference between the illness they have and that of the chauvinist. People, of whatever sex are equal before the law. Which sexual partne they choose is none of my or your business. How would you see asexualism if you cannot wrap your mind around same sex partners which have been around longer than the culture you so desperatwly cling to. Look around you, the real African culture I see your traditional leaders promote has a lot more to do with Russian rifles, Italian suits and German vehicles and litlle with the African life of family values , repect for elders of the past.

  • Dmwangi

    @MO:

    We’re also arguing from incompatible epistemologies.

    IR is a social science. It’s not physics. So on the one hand we need theory– concepts, categories, logical relations– to order and make sense of infinitely complex phenomena. On the other hand, we can’t keep conjuncting an ever wider array of exceptions to general principles in order to bridge the theoretic-realism divide. (You’d end up with a theory that looked like the discipline of history and had no predictive value.) Therefore, the test of a good theory or set of general principles, when it comes to social science, is a counterfactual one: are there any better ones available. It’s easy to think of many exceptions to general equilibrium theory. Does that mean we should banish it from economics???? No.

    So before you critique my theory, you must at least offer up your’s as a better one.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 10, 2012 at 18:46 pm

    Hayibo Dm,

    “Define discrimination and I’ll answer your question.”

    Padding, nè!

    Use the same meaning as in :

    9(3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

  • Dmwangi

    1) I don’t tell ppl to consult anyone but their conscience.

    2) The Constitution is not self-interpreting nor is it a Holy text. Even if you tell me you follow the Constitution as interpreted by the CC, this is not a moral stance. If the CC tells us it interprets the Constitution to include a right to infanticide, would that make it an acceptable ‘lifestyle’ choice?

    3) ‘People, of whatever sex are equal before the law. Which sexual partne they choose is none of my or your business’

    First sentence is true. The second is not. We make sure the sexual partners people choose are of certain ages, mental capacities, etc. But actually, I don’t care who people choose to live with or do in their bedrooms. I do care however about homosexuality and various other deviancies being publicly promoted and glamourised. There are also quite a lot of public health problems related to homosexual *conduct*, which is different from being homosexual.

    4) ‘same sex partners which have been around longer than the culture you so desperatwly cling to’

    Actually, while it *might* be true that same-sex attraction has been around a long time, if you read my first post, it’s clear that the ideology that sodomy is good has only been around for a few decades.

  • Dmwangi

    @Maggs:

    Define ‘unfairly’ in 9(3).

    Clearly, it is fair to discriminate in some instances. E.g. Barring males from female toilets discriminates based on sex.

  • Dmwangi

    Constitution bans unfair discrimination, not all discrimination.

    I too believe *unfair* discrimination is always wrong. But we’ll probably disagree about what is fair and unfair.

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Dmwangi

    “We do not mistreat those with drug addiction [or whom suffer from homosexuality] We show them compassion and try to provide them all the help and treatment”

    I must say I am moved by the evident good will shown by Dmwangi Whether or not we accept his claim that sodomy is pathological, one’s heart is warmed by Dmwangi’s compassion and offers of care.

    Thanks, Dmwangi!

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 10, 2012 at 20:28 pm

    Hey Dm

    “Clearly, it is fair to discriminate in some instances. E.g. Barring males from female toilets discriminates based on sex.”

    Damn, you’re a genius!

    Now why didn’t we thin of that????

    If only you were around when our Constitution was being drafted we would have included a clause like so into it :

    9(5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

  • Dmwangi

    Hey genius,

    9(5) is called a rebuttable presumption. But I can’t rebut it unless you tell me your definition of ‘fair.’

    Thanks.

  • Olds

    I’m with you on the female/male loos, Dmwangi, for the rest I get lost in the ‘reasoning’ of someone who see no difference between fact and fiction. I can only assume that like Chaucer you enjoy giving the truth scope and that is your democratic right. This will serve you well as a spindoctor for whichever traditional leader you democratically choose to follow if you have not already arrived (you seem to have a lot of leisure to spin tales). This teagirl needs to go to bed so as to be ready for tomorrow’s democratic slavery.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi
    December 10, 2012 at 20:52 pm

    LOL Dm,

    I, as disappointing as that may be, don’t get to define what “fair” or “unfair” is.

    God’s third son and his ten disciples on The Hill do!

    That aside – you seem to be struggling with elementary concepts.

    But since you’ve acknowledged that you struggle with elementary concepts, perhaps you should stick to having fun in the garden.

    WDYSTT?

  • Olds

    Yikes Maggs
    Gardens are full of messy scientific hard facts like pests, soil deficiencies, lack of water and and recalcitrant species that don’t listen to elders, not to mention backbreaking work. Even I wouldn’t be so cruel as to send our Thoureaux-like master of idealism there. Mind you, we could get our own African version of “Into the Wild” from his experiences.

  • Dmwangi

    @Olds:
    ‘Dmwangi, for the rest I get lost in the ‘reasoning’ of someone who see no difference between fact and fiction’

    Am committed to realism. Maybe tomorrow you can educate me about which part is fictitious.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Injustice Facts ‏@InjusticeFacts

    Only 6 countries known to have executed juvenile offenders in the last 15 years: the U.S. , Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Nigeria.

  • Zoo Keeper

    MO and Dmwangi

    Angola was largely a proxy war, but this time with proper proxies and less direct involvement by the USA and Russia. USA using SA with UNITA and FNLA, Russia with the MPLA and Cuba.

    It had nothing to liberation of the Angolans but everything to do with the fight for resources and the Cold War. The war has been over for decades and the Angolan people are no closer to real democratic self-government than they ever were.

    So that leaves another question, how does a society ensure that they cannot become the serfs of a dictatorship? When a society has its back to the wall it has to physically fight for its liberation. So how do you prevent this in the first place? How do you keep the balance between rulers and ruled? What could equalize the situation so these events are minimized?

    What do you guys reckon?

  • Zoo Keeper

    Dmwangi

    On your post above which claims that ideological acceptance that sodomy is good has only been around a few decades just shows me you’ve never studied ancient Greek art. :)

    Alexander the Great anybody?

  • Brett Nortje

    There is another principle here particularly where African states are involved and that is that he who pays the piper…

    If governments always fail and their citizens are in perpetual need of rescue does the international community just shut up about governance in those countries while digging in their citizens’ pockets to hand over as aid to idiocracies?

    Khosi?

  • Zoo Keeper

    It seems to be a repetitive problem of governments going rogue over their citizens.

    How do societies therefore protect themselves from these eventualities?

  • Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder

    @ Brett

    As I feel sure Dmwangi will agree, so called “aid” is itself a form of intervention; it always comes with strings attached. That is why we demand that NO further “aid” be given to African states. Africans must become self reliant. As Mr Mbeki always said, we will develop AFRICA solutions for AFRICAN problems!

    Thanks.

  • Dmwangi6789753@yahoo.com

    ‘Zoo Keeper
    December 11, 2012 at 11:16 am
    Dmwangi

    On your post above which claims that ideological acceptance that sodomy is good has only been around a few decades just shows me you’ve never studied ancient Greek art.’

    Shows you’ve never read Plato or Aristotle or Socrates (Xenophon) all of whom find sodomy intrinsically immoral.

  • Zoo Keeper

    Dmwangi6789753 (wow, there’s a lot of you)!

    Just because it happens, doesn’t mean everyone has to like it. I’m a strong advocate of personal choice. That some of their fellow citizens indulged in a bit of manlove doesn’t mean every citizen has to agree with it. That’s great thing about personal choice, Aristotle is as entitled to his views on sodomy as Alexander the Great.

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Dmwangi6789753@yahoo.com
    December 11, 2012 at 14:51 pm

    Hey 6789753

    “you’ve never studied ancient Greek art.’”

    Maybe ZooKy doesn’t bother with Greek, but have you studied Gangnam style?

  • Zoo Keeper

    Dmwangi

    My view on the whole sodomy thing is that it is no business of anybody’s, least of all a government, what happens between two consenting adults.

    When one is not consenting, that is when an assault occurs (sexual assault, rape, etc) and a criminal prosecution follows.

    You are free to view sodomy as immoral and wrongful, just as the Professor is free to disagree with you on that; but neither of you are free to dictate to people what they do in their private spheres.

    You don’t have to be forced to like gays either of course. Be disapproving as you will; just leave them be.

  • Zoo Keeper

    MO and Dmwangi

    Back to sovereignty. One of the most common excuses is to save the population from tyrannical rule.

    How do societies protect themselves from domination so as to avoid relying on outside help, which always comes with a price?

    What basics should be in place to discourage tyrannies from arising?

  • Maggs Naidu – (maggsnaidu@hotmail.com) – Zuma MUST go!

    Zoo Keeper
    December 11, 2012 at 15:08 pm

    ZooKy,

    “Be disapproving as you will; just leave them be.”

    Huh?

  • Michael Osborne

    @ Dmwangi

    1. I do not see how our dispute is a matter of “incompatible epistemologies.” Seems more like a question of political morality to me.

    2. I criticize your approach on the basis of what I see as its unsustainable absolutism. I suspect that we share an intuition that there is nothing objectionable about military intervention in extremis — where a tyrant is bent of exterminating each and every last Jew or Tutsi or spectacle-wearer (Pol Pot) in the land, and there is no plausible argument that the locals are in any sense “self-governing.”

    3. Indeed, there is a good argument that NOT to act is some circumstances renders one an accomplice. A decision to be passive is still a decision.

    4. My alternative theory? Roughly that intervention should be a last resort, should be proportionate, and should reflect a broad consensus. Principles of sovereignty and international order should weight heavily – but not decisively – against intervention.

    5. Yes, I know this is messy and open to all manner of abuse, and long plummets down very slippery slopes. But purist absolutism is a false refuge from the difficult choices with which we are confronted

  • Pingback: The Appalling Dangers of Family Life » Dear White Liberals - calling Gillian Schutte, Samantha Vice and Pierre de Vos