The Political Miseducation of Lindiwe Mazibuko

Lindiwe Mazibuko, DA spokesperson, was addressing the Cape Town Press Club during the week and made very astonishing remarks around the challenge of transformation in the country. In her speech, Mazibuko suggested that in redressing the historical imbalances in the country, Africans should not receive preferential treatment. Mazibuko appears to believe that whites in South Africa, who benefitted from the skewed and discriminatory system of apartheid, somehow, need some sort of redress as well.

It is difficult to establish whether Mazibuko was expressing her own personal views or was merely towing the party line. In either instance, it would be tragic that an African, regardless of their current circumstances, would want to equate the socio-economic challenges facing the majority who are poor with those of the privileged minority. It is this sort of misguided thinking that delays progress and compromises the transformation agenda in the country. It is clear from Mazibuko’s utterances that the DA seeks to preserve white privilege to the detriment of the majority who clamour for the rapid pace of tranformation.

Perhaps Mazibuko and her DA are ignorant of the sobering facts on the ground. The Commission for Employment Equity has reported that 73% of top management positions in the country are occupied by whites. Unemployment among whites is below 6% when among the historical disadvantaged majority it exceeds 26%. The economy after 17 years of democracy is still largely controlled by whites, as evidence by their direct ownership of the JSE. The majority who are poor in the country are Africans. Treating them as of equal circumstances to their privileged white South Africans will not assist nor advance their cause.

Mazibuko wants the country to pretend that our history is not a history that is defined by colour; and that we must ignore that the present circumstances of South Africans are a sad reflection of that history. To address these historical injustices we cannot over look race. It is in fact on the basis of race, as allowed by the Constitution, that we must proceed to redress those historical wrongs. Africans should stop being apologetic when confronting their own challenges and attempt to placade irrational fears of others who use such fear to hold the transformation agenda and progress to ransom.

Mazibuko, as a young African leader, must stop making excuses for the preservation of white privilege in order to appeal to her white constituency. The burden of responsibililty to advance transformation in the country rests on her DA shoulders too. Failure to redress the historical injustices is an indictment on her as well. The sooner African leaders in the DA, like herself, realise that they are part of the problem of lack of transformation, the sooner we can all begin to move forward in one direction.

The DA claims to be running the most efficient and least ‘corrupt’ province, yet such efficiencies do not significantly benefit the majority in the Western Cape who are African, Coloured and poor. We still hear of apartheid-style forced removals of shack dwellers in the Western Cape. Income inequality in the Western Cape is staggering in spite of how ‘efficient and least corrupt’ the DA is.

These are the sad realities that we cannot ignore nor can we pretend they do not exist. They are the consequence of racist policies of the past; and to address them, Mazibuko, should acknowledge that race is an important factor and begin to challenge the ‘pro-white privilege thinking’ within her own party. We cannot afford to have beautiful young minds like her championing counter-productive and anti-transformation agendas. The DA will remain steeped its pro-white privilege traditions if Afrcan leaders like Mazibuko do not become architects of change from within. The attitude and mindset of those in the DA needs to transform in order that the broader agenda of transformation registers in their political conscience.

Mazibuko needs to wake up and smell the coffee!

None but Africans can define themselves

African culture, religion and traditional practices have been altered significantly as a result of colonial rule. Colonial rulers interfered with the African way of life and worship. Africans were largely considered primitive. There was an unsolicited and desperate need for intruders in Africa to want to “modernise” Africans and indoctrinate them into a European way of life, thinking and worship. African cultures were gradually impoverished through neglect and deliberate suppression by colonial hooligans. There are some today who regard Euro-centricism as a measure of social advancement and modernity. Conversely, African values and principles are frowned upon.

The rise of African nationalism heralded campaigns by Africans to guard against external influences on their way of life. Culture is what defines society. A dilution of culture ordinarily means the loss of identity and uniqueness as a people. African culture is what defines Africans and distinguishes their humanity to others of different cultures.

A clear distinction needs to be drawn between “culture” and “tradition” as the two do not mean one and the same thing, though interconnected. Culture primarily refers to the value system and shared attitudes that characterise a group of people or society, their human expression and the way in which they perceive and interpret the nature of the world around them.

African cultural practices have a particular meaning that speaks to the values we embrace as Africans. The content and meaning of culture as projected through certain practices should never change nor be compromised but the tradition through which such cultural meaning or values find expression does evolve. Tradition is fluid. Tradition ensures continuity of culture and its transmission from one generation to the next and with each generation certain traditional practices which are considered archaic and irrelevant will ordinarily be abandoned.

With each generational change comes a new form of cultural expression, often to the horror of cultural extremists who are stuck on archaic practices that have not adapted to changing social circumstances. The cultural meaning remains the same even though the traditional practice may have been altered through the succession of generations.

To make a practical example of the above, let us look at the cultural practice of paying lobola. This is a traditional custom aimed at uniting two families together, those of the groom-to-be and bride-to-be. This is a form of expression of gratitude by the groom-to-be’s parents to their family for having presented them with a wonderful and beautiful future daughter-in-law while the groom-to-be communicates to his future parents-in-law that he is capable of supporting and taking care of their daughter.

Traditional lobola payment was in the form of cattle because in olden days, before the emergence of plastic money, cattle were the primary source of wealth. However, the dictates of modern times have rendered cattle as payment irrelevant to the extent that African families who have embraced social advancements and adapted accordingly would accept cash instead. Perhaps in future plastic money would also be an acceptable form of exchange between the two families. Despite these changes in traditional practices, the cultural significance of lobola has not changed. It remains the same.

Africans fully understand what informed their traditional practices and the meaning and relevance of such practices. That there may be so-called Westernised Africans who reject African culture in favour of Western values and religion, does not mean that African culture has no relevance and meaning.

African culture is reflected in music, food, art, language, jewellery, among other things. These are part of the distinguishing features among cultures of the world. There can be no universality among such salient features of culture. Their meaning and origins are not entirely understood by those on the outside, but are nevertheless beguiled by them. They are who we are and what makes us the people others can identify among the rest.

The contentious question, made contentious by emotional fragilities of some, is “who is an African?” Black people are Africans. Africans are black people. The significant meaning of the term “African” refers to racial identity of black people and goes beyond the sentimentality of geographical location of others of different races who appropriate the description to themselves. An African is defined by the culture described above. Being of a different race to Africans and embracing such African culture affords one a sense of belonging to that society in which one exists, but does not change the racial identity of a person of European descent, for example.

A person of European descent born and bred in Africa will ordinarily have a sense of belonging to Africa by claiming roots in the continent. However, such belonging by accident of birth does not make one an African in the true meaning of who an African is. That Africa is the cradle of humanity and therefore we are all Africans becomes an absurd proposition since the rest of the world does not refer to themselves as Africans. To use the term “African” in reference to one’s geographical location is of no consequence or meaning. It becomes a mere description that carries no weight and is futile. It becomes a convenient narrative by some to distance themselves from the unflattering history of slavery, colonialism and apartheid repression. There seems to exist an irrational notion that unity can be forged through revising history for social expediency.

Africans have in the past over-extended and compromised themselves in the pursuit of harmonious co-existence with others. Africans in South Africa have walked an extra mile since 1994 to extend a hand of reconciliation. This hand of reconciliation has often has been shunned by those who are historical offenders and who should be in the forefront of forging unity and reconciliation with those they have offended and wronged in the past. There has always existed a dismissive attitude against those Africans who are unapologetic about who they are and what being African means. There are some who feel threatened by African nationalism and perhaps see the collective pride among Africans as a threat to their privilege. The glaring difference in the culture of Africans and pseudo-Africans is the Afro-centric and Euro-centric nature of each. One cannot claim lineage with Africans when what defines who she/he is not rooted in Africa. We must reject this sort of cultural or racial arbitrage.

Africans need to reclaim their identity, religion and culture, and discard many of those which were imposed on them, by embracing Afrocentricism as the essential element of the African renaissance as popularised by the former President Thabo Mbeki.

Mbeki remarked: “an essential and necessary element of the African renaissance is that we all must take it as our task to encourage she [Africa] who carries this leaden weight to rebel, to assert the principality of her humanity — the fact that she, in the first instance, is not a beast of burden, but a human and African being.”

We cannot allow as Africans our identity to become easily dispensable for social expediency and to assuage irrational fears of some. Africans almost had their identity reduced to nothingness during the era of colonial thuggery. It cannot be that when Africans have liberated themselves from such historical thuggery and asserted their identity, they can today be blackmailed into watering down what defines them and who they are for the sake of inclusivity and accommodation of others.

Africans must reclaim and defend their identity, lest we revert to colonial days when the task of defining ourselves was the burden of others.

(First published in http://www.juicyafrica.com)

Of Western, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalism

The Cold War between 1947 and 1991 was fought on ideological grounds. The imperial West sought to establish its dominance in world affairs to the defeat of the Soviet Union and its allies. In the aftermath of WWII, communist ideology had gained unprecedented popularity and was spreading across Europe. The US and Britain were terrified of the consequence of the spread of communism on the global political and economic landscape. At that time, Germany was learning towards communism and was going through post-war economic convulsions. That the European economy to a large extent depended on Germany’s industrial base, the US tabled the Marshall Plan as an attempt to extend influence on the political and economic direction of Europe.

The famous speech “Restatement of Policy on Germany” by former US secretary of state James Byrnes in Stuttgart September 6 1946 set the Cold War into motion. In his speech Byrnes sold “peace” as the reason for Germany to reject communism. He also said: “We [the US] have learned that peace and well-being are indivisible and that our peace and well-being cannot be purchased at the price of peace or the well-being of any other country.” What followed was the systematic campaign by the US to de-legitimise and undermine communism with consistent regularity and zeal. The protection and promotion of Western interest was paramount.

The end of the Cold War, which was precipitated by the fall of the Soviet Union and the wave of anti-communist revolutions in Eastern Europe in 1991; somewhat coincided with the genesis of the military adventure of the West in the Arab world in 1990. Saddam Hussein’s armed forces had invaded Kuwait, which provoked “international” condemnation. The US led military efforts to prevent the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. During the Cold War, Iraq had been an ally of the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein’s support of anti-Israel groups was a source of discontent and disgust by the US. The Gulf War was not waged out of interest for the security of the people of Kuwait but for protection of interests of the West in the region and to safeguard the security of Israel.

The US had already fought a proxy war in the region, when it supported, financially and militarily, the mujahideen in Afghanistan who were fighting against the Soviet Union and the Marxist-Leninist government of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was part of the mujahideen who enjoyed support of the US during this war. He was useful for advancement of the US agenda against the communist onslaught at the time. The Afghan war with the Soviet Union was the rallying point for Islamic fundamentalists who deemed their cause a Jihad against invaders. The Afghan Jihad victory against the Soviet Union in 1988 led to the creation of al-Qaeda, a base movement that would lead the Jihad in future. The US must be proud to have contributed financially and militarily to the establishment of al-Qaeda.

It was this Gulf War of 1991 that established a fertile ground for the future “War on Terror” against al-Qaeda and its affiliate organisations. The US had sent its troops to Saudi Arabia and established military bases in that Muslim country in order to launch the war against Saddam Hussein’s armed forces. Post the Gulf War, US troops remained in Saudi Arabia, largely for the purpose of policing the region and protecting its own economic and political interests. The presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia provoked the same anger against the US among the mujahideen as was the case against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. A similar ideological battle between Western fundamentalism, which is rooted in principles of democracy and free-market system, and Islamic fundamentalism, premised on sharia, which rejects the free-market system.

It is now more apparent that the pretext for advancement of political and economic interests in the post-Cold War era is the invented “War on Terror”. A top military intelligence official in the UK, Major General Michael Laurie, told the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq invasion that: “We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence.”

Further to this Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, in an MSNBC interview said: “You can be very cynical and say he [George W Bush] didn’t want to get him [Bin Laden] because once he got him the war was over and that left all the political advantage gone.”

The “War on Terror” is the war against the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the propagation of Islamophobia, which has nothing to do with combating terrorism. The spread of terrorism is rooted on the expansion of the US and its allies in the Arab world. Islamic fundamentalism has been painted as the key driver for terrorism; that the establishment of Islamic states would be the precursor to the collapse of international peace and security. Unsurprisingly, a weak Islamic state of Afghanistan, under the Taliban, was swiftly overthrown and a puppet regime under Hamid Karzai installed.

The rise of Jewish fundamentalism (Zionism) and the pursuit of Jewish self-determination is seen as a force for good, as it closely aligns with the agenda of the West; whereas the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the pursuit of Muslim self-determination is seen as a force for evil. Jewish fundamentalism embraces the fundamental precepts of free-market system. Between the West and Israel, there exists a coalition of political and economic aggressors. Jewish fundamentalists respond with great vengeance against anyone who dares challenge Israel. A Jewish Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright, Tony Kushner, had been stripped of his honorary degree by a New York University because he committed the cardinal sin of criticising the apartheid state of Israel. Kushner is now portrayed by Jewish fundamentalists as the symbol of those closet “anti-Semites” or “self-hating Jews” who continuously bash apartheid Israel.

Organisations like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are seen as terrorist movements because of their unapologetic pursuit of Muslim self-determination. Hamas advocates for the establishment of an Islamic state in Palestine, resulting in them being deemed a “terrorist organisation”. Iran, which became an Islamic state after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, is “the state sponsor of terrorism”.

Al-Qaeda and the Taliban embrace the fundamentals of Islam and advocate for establishment of Islamic states in the Arab world. Ordinarily, the two Islamic fundamentalist organisations would become the enemy against the imperial forces of the West, regardless of whether their means to an end is killing civilians or not. The West used “human rights” and “democracy” to discredit the spread of communism and a similar tactic is employed towards Islamic fundamentalism. The West, ironically, commits greater crimes against humanity than those so-called terrorist organisations. The world has become largely unsafe, precisely because of the actions of the West. The “War on Terror” could end tomorrow, if the murderous US and its allies pull their troops from occupied Arab states and mind their business.

When the phoney “War on Terror” ends, the West will find another reason to crush that which stands in the way of their imperialist interests. Unfortunately, international institutions such as the UN Security Council have become the instruments used to grant legitimacy to the perpetration of international crimes.

Let Islamic fundamentalists have their own Islamic states as Jewish fundamentalists have their Zionist state!