Dadaisms

So the blogosphere, twittosphere, discussion threads and social networks are all abuzz with Adam Lambert talk. I read a very interesting article here about Adam’s presence on TV as a turning point for gay visibility.

And that got me thinking: do we judge him as a pioneer for gay rights? As a symbol of the young gay man today? As an icon in a continuous struggle for equality?

And my personal answer would be no to all of the above. Adam Lambert, for me, represents something far more complex and yet simpler at the same time. He speaks to the nature of sexual identity politics for so many ‘gay’ people today (young, maybe old?). He does not flaunt a personal struggle to come to terms with identity - indeed, as far as I’m aware he hasn’t specifically said “I am gay”…he’s just said that he has nothing to hide.

Nor does he speak out for any cause.

What this symbolises from my perspective is a frustration with labels and the media. Friends I have spoken to are tired of being labeled “gay”, because what does GAY mean? They’re tired of having to clarify, they’re tired of being judged by just ONE aspect of their life.

So whilst some people who watch AI are chatting about whether there’ll be a GAY winner, Adam Lambert is standing there as the epitome of the pomosexual man - the man who has moved beyond petty sexual identity politics.

Instead of lashing out about the Miss California issue, or speaking about gay marriage or whatever other issues, he just continues to do what he does best: perform.

And the message he sends is very clear:

“I’m here, and I can sing. I may be gay, I may not be, but who gives a f**k if I am? I still rock your world”

And that’s exactly what pomosexuality is, that “who cares??” aspect of life in relation to identity - who cares if he’s gay? If you’re asking, then it’s an issue for YOU, and YOU need to deal with it. Either that or you’re gay yourself and want to have some sort of common connection fantasy to him (no judgement here…). He’s beyond it - so don’t judge him or analyse him according to a set of predetermined values.

Adam, for me, is the pomosexual man. He may label himself as gay for convenience, but by no means is that a defining feature of him. He’s a testament to contemporary existence for many people - move on. Get over sexual labels, they’re not nearly as important as you think they are. There are bigger things to worry about in the world.

No, I’m not hero worshiping him. Nor am I putting pressure on him to live up to any expectations. I am simply observing his projected image. I don’t expect him to do certain things in terms of his life outside performing, nor do I expect him to say certain things about certain issues. And it is this lack of expectation that defines a pomosexual mode of representation - not a lack of ethics, but rather a lack of ‘hype’ around who’s gay/straight/bi/tri/trans/a/etc etc etc.

And so no, his presence on TV has not increased gay visibility. It instead serves as an insight into a segment of society that has evolved beyond dominant ideologies of heteronormativity and patriarchy. His presence has increased pomosexual visibility - it leaves those outside to the familiar prejudices of the Othering process thinking “WTF??”. And that is why Adam Lambert is incredible as an artist.

Viva the pomosexual. Viva Adam Lambert.

Share on Facebook

In recent international news South Africa has achieved new highs of ineptitude and lunacy. There probably isn’t an individual with half a brain in any conscious country that isn’t aware of the Xenophobic attacks fast becoming a national sport here. Indeed, the Mail & Guardian has an entire section dedicated to updates on Xenophobia (here).

There have been numerous attempts to justify and explain the motivations behind these attacks. Naturally it is common sense that the shock of seeing a person being burned alive with a flaming tyre over his/her neck is eased by ‘official’ rationale.

But allow me to contextualise the attacks. We live in South Africa, and as I have written in the past, our country is one of identity crisis. No-one knows who they are if truth be told:

the ANC is struggling to define what it means to be a “true South African”;

there are different ideas of what constitutes a “real” man or a “real” woman;

there is a struggle between Western ideologies and traditional “African” identities;

there is discord between Constitutional ideals and discursive realities;

and there are tensions between African gender systems and Western sexuality systems.

All this is tantamount to an identity crisis: how do we know are? Who do we define ourselves by? The tension in the ANC is a microcosm for South Africa: conflicting ideologies, lack of cohesion, and near-tribalistic opposition. For me, this identity crisis speaks of the failure of the ANC to advocate a sense of diversity. As I said in a previous post, appreciation for diversity needs to be lived, not just promulgated.

So if the identity of “South African” hasn’t been officially shaped and defined, what has happened?

Any identity is established, in part, by binary oppositions and “Othering” - we know we are men because we are not women; we know we are straight because we are not gay. We turn these so-called binary opposites into “Others”, and everything we see ourselves as ‘not’ we allocate to these “Others”.

So in South Africa, the only tangible ‘difference’ is place of birth - a difference that is so superficial, so colonial it reeks of mass hysteria and mass mentality. We (and I shudder at the use of this word) are South African because we are not Zimbabwean, or Zambian, or Ugandan, or Somalian. It doesn’t matter what we have in common. All that matters is that there is something solid - something absolute (finally!) about our self-identity. We know we are South African because we’re not from somewhere else.

Of course it’s irrational. But that’s how binary opposites work. And of course there are numerous other sociological, cultural, political and economical reasons. But for me a general identity crisis speaks volumes about our levels of tolerance (or rather, lack thereof). I believe that the frustration for some of not knowing who they are has been exponentially escalated by the Zimbabwean crisis. South Africa’s “quiet diplomacy” towards Zimbabwe - a country in utter crisis - has sparked unconscious fears about our future: what if we become like them? what if they come here and take our jobs? if we have no way of being more eligible than them how will we survive?

We, us - they, them.

And so you have a cry for identity. A very violent, messy, tragic cry.

Sadly this lack of identity seeps to a deeper level - the level of Public Spheres. If we understand the concept of a Public Sphere to be a place where people can engage in debate to form opinion about the future of their identities, as represented and transmitted by the media, where does this leave the “South African identity”? We’re part of a globalised world - in order for an identity to be accepted and viable, it needs to be transnational.

The patriarchal isiZulu identity, for example, is not transnational.

The ‘traditional’ female is an identity, for example, that is not transnational.

So do these identities just die? No. They sit and fester if left unattended to. They become infected and turn into constructed touchstones of absolution - points of reference in a reality that holds no certainty.

So what is the solution? Do we just reintegrate these displaced refugees? Come now, that’s not going to solve any problems. It’s not going to tackle the identity crisis.

The danger of any ’solution’ is isolating identities. It’s the paradox of the South African constitution: accept all identities, but experience none. We cannot risk isolation of identity: the world is moving (very slowly) towards gender/sexual/philosophical tolerance, and South Africa needs to be part of this trend.

What the government needs to do is take a firm, absolute stance on South African-ness. No pussy footing about with trying to get in touch with traditional ideals of this and that. No ‘remembering the past’ as a daily mantra. We’re part of a global society, and we need to deal with that.

If our Constitution accepts diversity, then at the top levels we need to make this clear.

Hint hint in relation to Zuma. Homophobic, sexist, tribalist, racist and ignorant is a fantastic combination. Really, it is.

Here we come 2010!

Share on Facebook

First off let me start off by saying that I subscribe to the core Christian doctrines - I find that it is a peaceful, loving way of life that (when interpreted in the ways suggested) helps one become a better person and find meaning in life. I, however, find myself having to clarify my beliefs and specify my religious attitudes: the label of “Christian” in today’s society has unfortunately become associated with prejudice, radical “saving” and being “reborn” (it worked fine the first time for me, thanks), and isolation from the world. Christianity has become a term associated with cultism and extremities - which is a far cry from what the set of principles truly (in my interpretations) stands for.

Although there are many contradictions in contemporary beliefs, trends and ideas, I shall not delve into them all. That would take pages and pages. What I wish to address is the much-debated issue of “gayness” and “homosexuality”. Having a number of openly gay friends, I find the hostility and prejudice against Christianity disturbing - isn’t it sad that a religion that preaches love and universal acceptance isolates such a large portion of humanity? I do not wish to condemn those so-called Christian’s who believe that “homosexuality” is wrong - I just wish to open their minds to other possibilities.

The premise for my analysis lies on the idea that there are so many versions of the Bible, so many denominations, so many interpretations that ALL believe that they are “right”. We need to understand that the Bible IS man-made - although writings may be by holy men and women or inspired by God (which is not what I am arguing here), the Bible was compiled by man. Certain texts were left out completely - refer to E Pagels’ The Gnostic Gospels (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985) for the Gospels that are not included in the popular Bible.

Combine this with hundreds of translations through many languages over many generations and you’re bound to have a few misinterpretations and incorrect assumptions. Yes, we can trust that the Bible contains the will of God. But we need to remember that MAN is not trustworthy - interpretations and translations contain the prejudices of those doing the translations.

Similarly, many ministers and preachers are NOT trained in interpretation and translation. Those who are our religious anchors are often no more educated in reading texts than the average congregation member.

So all of these elements form the basis of my interpretations. I am not trying to convince anyone in this note - merely open your minds. Bare in mind that I am not an expert - I do not speak Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. I am not skilled in translation. I have merely exposed myself to those who DO, and have formed my own opinions. I do not blindly accept that which is taught to me: people have their own motives, and so to argue “But the Bible says…” is reflecting ignorance.

I shall now briefly look at some Bible verses used to condemn “homosexuality”. In this note I consider “homosexuality” from today’s context. This context includes a liberal constitution, whereby “gay” people have emotional feelings for members of the same sex, and their sexual “preferences” are perspectives of normality. I am not simply referring to sexual acts. We also need to remember that what defines ‘homosexuality’ is also a highly contentious issue. Several scholars argue that the term and concept of ‘homosexuality’ only arose in the 19^th century. In his article “How to do the history of male homosexuality”, Halperin illustrates how our contemporary understanding of “gayness” is drastically different to historically documented forms of sexual behaviour. Baring in mind that we cannot infer any contemporary concepts onto completely different contexts, allow me to explore some ‘alternative’ interpretations to the Bible.

Genesis 19:1-11
This verse has caused much debate and argument. Lot, living in the city of Sodom, offers two strangers hospitality for the night. The enraged men of Sodom demand that Lot “Bring them out to us so that we may know them.” The problem lies in the word know. Modern interpretations have translated this word to have sexual meaning - the Good News Bible translates it to “The men of Sodom wanted to have sex with them.” Immediately we see a huge difference in meaning. The city immediately becomes immoral because of the men’s desire to “have sex” with other men.

However, Jesus himself says that Sodom was not destroyed because of “homosexual” tendencies:

• Matthew 10:14-15: “And if some home or town will not welcome you or listen to you, then leave that place and shake dust off your feet. I assure you that on the Judgement Day God will show mercy to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah than to the people of that Town!”

• Luke 10:10-12: “But whenever you go into a town and are not welcomed, go out in the streets and say, ‘Even the dust from your town sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. But remember that the Kingdom of God has come near you!’ I assure you that on Judgement Day God will show more mercy to Sodom that to that town!”

Now place this into the context of Genesis: custom of the time dictated that strangers in cities could not be hosted or entertained after nightfall without the permission of the elders. Lot thus entertains the men without permission, and subsequently violates custom. Surely then “know” simply can mean KNOW, and have no sexual connotations in the traditional text? Similarly, no further reference is made to Sodom as a place of “homosexuality” in the Bible.

Leviticus

Let us place this book in context. Male priests of the time were clearly defining Jewish cultural practices and customs in order to distinguish them from surrounding “pagan” practices in the new region. We thus need to constantly refer to each verse in this book in relation to previous verses and overall context. Please note: all Greek and Latin translations are courtesy of the University of KZN, Classics Department.

• Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”.

This word “abomination” is problematic - look at other versions of the bible to see what it has been translated to. In Hebrew this word is TOEVAH, the version of the original Greek word BDELUCMA. These words translate to English as “Ritually unclean”.

In context of 18:21 (”You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.”), one can see that the verse relates to idolatry practices of surrounding groups.

Thus, verse 22 is a highly probable reference to temple prostitution and male prostitution as part of idolatry worship of the time. The verse does not refer to “gay” behaviour in a modern sense - it does not refer to today’s notions of “homosexuality”. The verse basically says, “We are Jews - we do not behave like pagans and follow their ritual practices”.

• Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination…” Again the context of this verse is idolatry: refer to 20:1-5. The verse is referring to the popular Molech (also known as Baal) cult. Referring to other commands, all aspects of the book refer to “ritually unclean” practices - such as eating pork, or sleeping with a woman during her period. It has been strongly suggested that “homosexual” references refer to curbing male temple prostitution as seen by Molech followers.

Thus, Leviticus does not refer to “homosexuality” as being inherently evil as many people have tried to suggest. Again, we simply cannot impose Biblical understandings of same-sex-sexual encounters onto a contemporary context.

Let us now turn our attention to the New Testament. Referring to letters of the St Paul, which were written in Greek, we need to understand that they were being written from the perspective of a Hellenised Jew - Paul was combining elements of the Greek and Jewish tradition.

1 Corinthians 9-11
This letter is addressed to the people of Corinth, a city well-known for its mixture of cultures, races, and competing religious systems. These verses refer to those who will not “inherit the kingdom of God”. The first on the list is the “immoral” (Greek pornoi). This is followed by:

• Idolaters
• Adulterers
• Homosexuals
• Thieves
• Drunkards
• Revilers
• Robbers

Referring to “homosexuals”, let us look at the Greek that Paul uses. Paul uses two Greek words here - MALAKOI and ARSENOKOITAI. These two words have caused much confusion in terms of translation: there are no agreed upon meanings as to what the words mean.

• Malakoi: In Greek this word means “soft” or “gentle”. In relation to pornoi, Paul probably means someone with “loose morals” or a “lack of self control”. Before modern interpretations, the word was used for both men and woman, completely independent of sexuality. Thus, Paul is using it as a general term for those with loose morals.

• Arsenokoitai: This word is highly problematic. Paul created this word as a direct translation of the Hebrew words found in Leviticus. As we know even from Afrikaans or French to English, direct translations do not accurately reflect the meaning behind the original words. The direct meaning of the word can be broken into “arseno” (male) and “koitai” (lying with; going to bed with). However, we need to consider the context behind the Hebrew word. Is Paul referring to male prostitution in general? He cannot be referring to today’s conception of “homosexuality”, as that word was - in fact - only coined in 1892.

We thus need to be careful of using Corinthians to condemn “homosexuality”. Understanding that the word “homosexual” is a very modern construct, the ideologies and discourses surrounding Paul’s context simply cannot be placed alongside contemporary ideas and attitudes.

1 Timothy 8-10
Here the law is being laid down for the lawless and disobedient, the “ungodly and sinners”. Another list is given, including: murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, manslayers, immoral persons sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers. Again, immoral persons refers to the Greek word “pornoi”, and Paul uses “arsenokoitai” again for “sodomites”. We need to reflect on the contexts discussed above, and whether the modern term “sodomites” is an accurate translation for the Greek word and Hebrew context.

Romans 1:26-27

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

Paul here is speaking about how the ancients knew about God, but did not honour Him - they created images and idols. As a result, they surrendered to idolatry passions:

• Women: Exchanged natural relations for unnatural
• Men: Gave up natural relations with women for each other - they committed “shameless acts”

It is clear that Paul is condemning “homosexual” acts committed by previous “heterosexuals” - this passage refers not to “gay” people as we understand it today and “homosexuals” in general, but to the behaviours of deviant heterosexuals.

Conclusions?

As can be seen, there are huge problems in translation: it is essential to go back to the original text and context. Sadly, many modern Christians are not aware of this, and many spiritual leaders are uneducated and narrow-minded. The Bible is not a text that can simply be translated for modern reading - images and context constantly change.

Similarly, there was not concept of modern “homosexuality” in the ancient world. Paul’s words he created contain ambiguous meanings, and it is wrong to just assume that “the bible says being gay is wrong”. Although the bible condemns male-same-sex-sexual-relations in Leviticus and Romans, this needs to be understood in a context of idolatry, male prostitution, and temple prostitution.

And what about “lesbianism” we must ask?

Let us turn to Jesus Christ’s teachings: surely if “homosexuality” in modern terms was an issue Jesus would have said something? And if “homosexuality” was such a sin and big issue, the bible would deal with the subject in depth and clearly?

We need to understand that sexuality is culturally constructed: we cannot transfer modern beliefs and understanding to an ancient context. We are too dependent on literal, direct translations of the bible. As Christians we need to remember that our beliefs command love, acceptance, tolerance and understanding. God loves all and is not narrow-minded: you believe He created the world, and so everything and everyone exists for a reason.

Remember that nothing is cast in stone, and that as a “Christian” people should follow your example and admire you. Judgement and condemnation of the way some people are in their very being does not, in my opinion, seem like a very Christian attitude.

Perhaps too much emphasis has been placed on the ability to speak in tongues, or be “slain” by the spirit. It seems to me that we’ve lost sight of what it means to be a Christian. Certainly we can preach against promiscuity, but I have a feeling that Paul would be condemning such hypocrisy and superficiality as opposed to condemning “homosexuals”.

I believe that in a world with so much blatant evil, the Christian “community” should be focusing on love, acceptance and peace. Far too much energy is being spent on the condemnation of homosexuals - the condemnation of people who often are gay and simply cannot ‘do’ anything about it. If religious leaders like Desmond Tutu believe that homosexuality is not a sin (he has written the introductions to many books on homosexuality and it’s acceptability in terms of religion), and that we should be focusing our energy on more relevant and tangible issues, then perhaps fundamentalists and followers of TV-Evangelism should take a step back and realise what harm that are doing in the name of ‘Christianity’.

[All information from University of KwaZulu Natal]

Share on Facebook

From:  http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/mandelarhodesscholars/2008/02/26/superficially-south-african/

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Provinces of South Africa, and to the Republic for which it stands …

Then again, maybe not.

I have run into a fair amount of criticism for not being completely patriotic and enthusiastic about the construction of a compulsory South African identity.

No, I am not “proudly South African”, and I am proud to say it. In the seemingly desperate battle for a uniform that everyone — regardless of race, creed, background or shoe size — can don, we have lost sight of what should truly define us as a country: our diversity.

The recent proposal to introduce a pledge into schools is a backward step in defining a sense of national pride. While I fully support the notion of being made aware of the sacrifices that great people have made in the past so that we may have the future we are currently living, I struggle to come to terms with the expectation that in order to qualify as a true South African, one must be proud of all people, values and traditions deemed worthy.

Don’t get me wrong — I realise that the pledge and the drive toward a national ethics include an appreciation for some of the most fundamental human rights. But the motivation behind it is warped: the ANC is mimicking the strategy of less complicated countries in a bid to say: “Yes, it means this to be a South African: [insert list of worthy adjectives here].”

The existence of a national ideology, a national identity, is a foreign concept for South Africans: it is irrational to assume that we can simply set aside all our differences.

What is also bizarre is to assume that we have a reason to place our “national identity” above any other that we may have. People usually do not enjoy placing a singular identity above others — I am sure no gay man, for example, likes to be defined solely by the fact that he is gay, or a black woman by the fact that she is black.

So why, then, do we assume that in such a culturally diverse country, where ties to heritage, family or self-formed identity run deep, we should naturally choose to place an imposed national identity above all others?

Of course the pledge and the extended “Proudly South African” campaign goes hand-in-hand with the need to create a tangible definition of what it means to “be” South African: what the country as an entity stands for, and thus what it means to be a part of it. I am all for entrenching a notion of human respect among all citizens. My problem lies with the shroud of superficiality that surrounds the eradication of difference in the process.

For some reason there seems to be a chilling fear when it comes to difference. Differences are thought to be absolutely synonymous with conflict, rebellion and nation-degeneration. Far from celebrating difference and encouraging an understanding about other cultures (in the broadest sense of the word), there appears to be a continuing tendency to conform towards an idealised and irrational Westernised paradigm of normality.

Our Constitution shines with talk of equal rights, tolerance and acceptance, yet the powers that be frequently act in ways that seem to oppress sub-groups and reverse any change that may have taken place. And generally if one complains about an approach, one is either called counter-progressive in one form or another, or simply told to leave the country.

Now that’s what I call forward thinking.

So what, then, am I expected to be proudly South African about?

Is it the history of the land into which I was born, through no choice of my own? Is it the achievements of individuals from the past, whom I shall never know personally? Is it the country’s peaceful shift into democracy, of which I was oblivious due to my age? Or is it something more trivial — such as the friendly people, or the weather? I would not die for “my country” if we were called to war. Nor would I get into an argument of blind and violent defence if a foreigner began criticising it.

Ironically, the majority of patriots that I have encountered are proud of the quirky sayings, the food, the weather or the geographical features of the country — not the surface values or the institutions.

For me to say: “I am a proud South African”, and be proud to take on a national identity, we as a people (defined by geographical borders) would have to realise that no, we cannot simply forget our differences. And, as opposed to shying away from the possibility that we may all be different (horror), embrace our plurality with the mindset of realising that there are alternatives to our narrow ways of life. The key here is to advocate a negotiation of understanding, not a compromise of beliefs.

Perhaps the decision to introduce a pledge was a move in this very direction. But I hardly think so. We cannot hope to forge that common link between groups when difference is suffocated and ideals are introduced merely to mask variation and smother true tolerance.

Of course I am being idealistic — but so is the current approach. Which is more far-fetched: to work towards convincing people to set aside their differences because “essentially we are all equal” (but of course some are more equal than others), or to work towards convincing people that through our differences we can appreciate the fact that we deserve equal rights and respect? Difference is deeply entrenched in this country. Why not celebrate it first and become united through it later? The current ideology needs to shift away from simply saying we encourage difference.

I agree we need some common sense of social cohesion. The fact that I have used “we” throughout this post shows that there is a space for the development of a mutual identity. National identity is something from which we paradoxically cannot shy away in our apparent postmodern existence.

However, a South African should be defined in terms of something completely unique — something that does not mimic other national identities. There is a need for an executive that sets an example: we need new leaders who show the people what it means to be tolerant and accepting, and who do not try to enforce values from the bottom-up.

We need to build a notion of pride and unity around a society that has truly managed to overcome ideological walls and identity barriers, and not simply been forced to sweep them under the ANC welcome mat.

Share on Facebook

I recently applied for the “Mandela Rhodes Foundation Scholarship”, and I was fortunate enough to be shortlisted for an interview. One of the requirements from the foundation was an original essay on:

“What do you see as your own purposes as a leader of the future, and what do the lives of Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela and Cecil John Rhodes mean to you in this context?”

Below you can read my essay. I’m very interested to see what opinions people may have.

South Africa is often described as a land of possibility, a place with overwhelming potential. Our unique history of colonialism, imperialism and apartheid has culminated in the smelting pot of vibrancy and multiculturalism that one can see daily. Our position as a country cannot be equated to any other, despite frequent attempts at the importation of systems and values. The revolutionary progression from an autocratic regime of oppression to a young and energetic democracy is something of which to be proud. However, the climate of global existence is one of constant change, adaptation and negotiation. South Africa can no longer be led under past strategies of unification; to be guided by strained notions of similarity; to be inspired by foreign concepts of identification. Change is needed: people who realise the nature of difference need to be celebrated as future leaders. It is here that I see my purpose.

I have extracted two very significant ideologies from the lives of Messrs Mandela and Rhodes that I apply to my own core beliefs. Mr Mandela has taught me that despite our perceived differences, a common goal of peace and acceptance – not dismissal – of such differences ultimately benefits all. Leaders are not necessarily born into aristocracy, nor is leadership a road that is easy to travel. Mr Rhodes has taught me that it is a mistake to spend one’s life attempting to unify diverse people under one common banner of identity. I have extracted from his life the knowledge that change is a process that happens over time, and that respect and understanding for those around one will propel one further than hostility and irrationality. I take the liberty of weaving my purpose with an expansion on these two ideologies:

I do not subscribe to the belief system that the group is more important than the individual. Until now, the leaders of our country have been following the example of others in attempts to unite the citizens and identities of South Africa under the unified banner of “Proudly South African”. The context of this unification is to set aside our differences and reflect on our similarities. Such a strategy can no longer apply: to be proud of our achievements is one thing, but to be proud of our lack of difference enters the domain of the nonsensical for many South Africans. It is human nature to define oneself in comparison to another, and thus it is nearly impossible to simply “ignore” that which helps form one’s own identity. The meta-narratives of life that defined the past can no longer be applied: an age of pride in one’s unique identity is upon us as a people, and it is necessary for leaders who subscribe to a pluralistic worldview to be in positions of power.

As a future leader of South Africa, I believe that what unites us is our differences: we can find unity through acceptance of the fact that we are not same, and the South African public can take pride in the knowledge that they have set aside attempts to be the same, have acknowledged difference, and managed to live in harmony despite such differences. As opposed to viewing our differences as “dangerous” and tools to isolate, it is my belief that acceptance, honour and respect need to be emphasised to help pursue human freedoms and facilitate both a universal social development and, ultimately, peace and stability.

Education gives one the power to guide, rule and inspire – the power to be a leader. It is through education that one can follow in the footsteps of Mandela and Rhodes and make changes that benefit all. I have been privileged enough to receive Education on many levels. Having been raised in a family of Educators has opened my eyes to the needs of the country, and having studied the influence of the Media has given me insight into the extraordinary power that words, symbols and ideas can hold. My exposure and interaction with so many subgroups, cultures, religions and belief-systems has made me aware of our deep-set differences, yet simultaneously made me proud in the knowledge that I understand how others see the world. It is my goal to extend this maturity and knowledge to a National level: using the power of the Media and the influence of authority I believe it is possible to educate others about the diversity of our country; to instil a sense of pride in their uniqueness; to impress a concept of reconciliation without the need to change one’s own beliefs (but rather negotiate one’s understanding); and to unite the people under a banner of difference, not similarity.

As Mandela and Rhodes illustrate, the path to acceptance and a better future is one filled with many challenges. I believe that it is my purpose to learn from past mistakes, adapt to a changing global environment and show the world how my peers and I exist on a day-to-day basis: in acceptance, difference, tolerance and love. As a leader, I envision this country laying the road for a tolerant and unified human race to mature from the potential that is Africa. Although this road is exceptionally long, Mandela has made it clear that the results and the improvements that follow far surpass the wait and the work put into leading.

Share on Facebook

In a recent interview I was posed with the question of whether the government is out of touch with the youth of today - whether a lack of understanding has resulted in the government’s failure in many spheres. After consideration, I answered, “Yes, they are out of touch”.

Despite all my previous criticisms of South Africa, I can still see the country for what it is: a smelting pot of cultures, sub-cultures, identities and social groups. The unique history of the country combined with the liberal Constitution has created scope for the development and growth of a huge variety of groups. This, I believe, is the true nature of South Africa. And this, I believe, is where Youth Culture is located.

I need to briefly define by what I mean by Youth Culture. When I use the term, I am referring to people between the ages of 13 and 30, who are educated to some degree, and who are exposed to both their own “traditional” aspects of South African life as well as an Urbanised, Globalised aspect. I am not referring to isolated Youth Culture that does not frequently come into contact with the media, commodification, globalisation and internationalisation.

As I was saying, I believe that Youth Culture is located in the middle of the smelting pot. We are exposed and aware of the multiplicity of identities that exist, and we are similarly aware of the vast number of differences that exist between them. We have multiple identities depending on which “group” we are associating with, and our own “culture” is defined, as Gee theorises, by our unique exposures to different identities.

Take the following imaginary (yet realistic) individual for example: a white South African male who is “gay”. He has a black adopted sister. His best friend is an affluent white “lesbian” with a lower middle class girlfriend. He subscribes to Buddhist philosophies, but his family is Christian. He attends University, where his circle of friends include a Republican American and a New-Age pantheist.

This single individual is exposed to a huge number of sub-cultures and belief systems, yet he - as part of the Youth Culture of SA - has his own identity with which he is comfortable. Similarly, he may not agree with some of the other views that he is exposed to, yet he does not try to impose his views onto people: he does not believe his “culture” is “right”.

Such is the nature of SA Youth Culture: we are naturally pluralistic.

It is here that the government of the day has encountered a problem: we recognise that we cannot be “the same”. We cannot be like America, and form a “South African way”. The smelting pot does not allow for differences to be set aside - we are too aware of our differences. The government, however, sees difference as a problem: everyone needs to be the same. The fact of the matter is that we are NOT all the same - and the Youth are aware of this. The difference is that we do not see it as a problem.

As a Youth of South Africa, I believe that what unites us is our differences: we can find unity through acceptance of the fact that we’re not same, and the South African public can take pride (if they feel they need it) in the knowledge that they have set aside attempts to be the same, have acknowledged difference, and managed to live in harmony despite such differences.

The government needs to stop pushing a “Proudly South African” campaign under the umbrella of unity through similarities. By doing so, the powers that be are isolating a large percentage of the population. There is no single public sphere: there are multiple identities, and thus multiple public spheres. The government needs to rethink their strategy of unification.

It needs to push a campaign that fits into an evolving world where pluralism is the norm, where the future leaders of the country will feel that it is heading in a realistic direction with achievable goals.

Share on Facebook

As we get nearer and nearer to the next SA elections, the question everyone is asking is “who will be the next President?”. Technically that’s not up to us as citizens - we simply elect the party, and Parliament elects the President. But in reality, they usually will choose the Leader of the Winning Party. Which then poses the question: who will take over leadership of the ANC? (Because, let’s face it, the ANC is sure to win again).

The three main names that seem to be thrown about are good old JZ (Jacob Zuma, who’s popularity in KZN strikes fear into the hearts of many-a-patriot); Tokyo Sexwale (struggle hero and businessman); and Cyril Ramaphosa (socialist, struggle hero, businessman, Unionist and lawyer). These three names all share the common denominator of “struggle hero”. Tokyo and Cyril share interests in business.

The person who seems to not be as well-known in the “running circle” is Deputy President

Unlike the other candidates, Phumzile has a background in education: she holds a Bachelor’s degree in Social Science and Education, and a Masters in Philosophy, as well as having worked internationally for the YWCA (read up on her here). She simultaneously has a good reputation in the international community - which is more than most other members of the Cabinet can claim.

I believe that South Africa would benefit hugely from having the first female elected Head of State in Africa: not only will it do wonders for our reputation and send out a strong message to patriarchal citizens, it will also give the country’s state of education a big boost. At present, the Education Department is in shambles: although the media doesn’t cover it, the reality of the situation is that there is lack of competent management; lack of funds; and lack of a well-respected and practical policy. There is enough emphasis on entrepreneurship in SA, there is enough emphasis on Tourism. It is high time that emphasis be placed on Education.

And who better to emphasise as such than a woman who has worked for the UN and is held in high regard by both the local (barring JZ supporters, go figure) and international communities?

Of course Phumzile has had her criticisms - not being cautious enough when making public statements being one of them. However, compared to the other candidates, her slate is relatively clean.

Yes, if we want someone to lead us through improved hygiene methodologies (showering skills in particular) then Jacob is our man. But personally I feel that the country as a whole would benefit from Phumzile’s experience, respectability, and education.

[Visit this link for a profile of Phumzile.]

Share on Facebook

KwaZulu Natal has been in state of unrest over the past few months. This time it’s not about Jacob Zuma. Nor is it about Blue Lighting. It’s about the plans to change the names of streets in Durban.

News of the degree of unrest that the municipality’s campaign has ignited has reached as far as Australia. The Australian and The Namibian both report how “Durban name-change sparks chaos”.

Alas, another example to the international community how our streets are often filled with “thousands of stick-and knobkerrie-wielding protesters”. (from the Mail and Guardian).

Unfortunately, this latest endeavour is merely another fiasco to illustrate my previous post’s point regarding the lack of consideration and lack of planning that the government appears to take pride in. I personally have an issue with the municipality allocating money to such a “cause”: surely the money would better be spent on improving schools in the city? Employing more teachers? Training more police officers? Preparing for 2010?

On a more realistic level, one would think that it makes more sense to improve road quality and road safety before worrying about the name of the road.

Of course it’s unreasonable to assume that the money would have alleviated all the world’s problems. Of course it’s understandable that the municipality wanted to make a notable change in the city. Of course it’s impossible to please everyone.

There’s a difference, however, between implementing a plan wisely, and implementing a plan without thought of immediate and future consequences. Mangosuthu Buthelezi summed it up perfectly when he said that, “This is short-sighted and in the long run, counterproductive”. (Mail and Guardian.) The chaos and bad publicity that the plan has caused could have easily been avoided had the powers that be simply gathered sufficient public opinion.

Had they done so, they would have realised that although the ANC is the ruling party, not everyone is privy to renaming streets after certain, select – and often obscure – party heroes. Whilst certain people deserve to be remembered, it is not up to a select few (that is, the municipality) to choose who is worthy. Just as the ANC has heroes, so the IFP, the DA and the ID have memorable icons of liberty and freedom.

As a young white South African, I have no affiliations with Griffiths Mxenge, Chris Hani, Monty Naicker, Joe Slovo and Moses Mabhida. The only “heritage” that I have is that which stems from British ancestry.

Yes, colonialism was a great evil.

But now 100 years later, our generation’s historical ties are those linked to Britain. Although by no means should the focus be placed on our community, a degree of recognition should be given. This is, after all, the “Rainbow Nation”, where people of all origins coexist. As “The Australian” reports:

The changes follow similar initiatives in other South African cities that have got rid of street names redolent of their colonial and apartheid past. In Durban, long renowned as a “last outpost of the British Empire” and the heart of English-speaking South Africa, it has proved more controversial than elsewhere.

“The sad thing about this is the erasure of history,” said David Basckin, a Durban
academic. “It’s a great pity to rub out the names of local people who built this city in order to honour foreign revolutionaries, obscure ANC activists and, in one case, an out and out criminal.”

The erasure of history is indeed sad. In a country that allegedly prides itself on remembering the past and learning from mistakes, the rulers seem very eager to “forget” everything and create one common, dictated, artificially constructed identity.

The lesson to be learned from the protest march is that the people are not as accepting and tolerant as they look. The ruling party is quick to suggest that everything is “going well”. The people living the reality and feeling the impact of badly thought-out plans can clearly only take so much.

It’s unfortunate that we have to go through the process of illogical spending, chaos, international embarrassment and high tension before government starts taking public opinion seriously.

What’s even more unfortunate is that it seems to be becoming a trend in South Africa. Anything “alive with possibilities” has clearly now become “alive with possibilities of disaster”.

Share on Facebook

This post was taken from my Facebook Notebook. Read it and its comments here. The original date of publication was 10:55am Friday, Mar 30.

South Africa’s democracy is new: it is only in its second decade of existence.

The country is still in the phase of trying to create a set image and perception that the international community may refer to, in hopes of seeing us as more than just “the place where apartheid happened”.

Indeed, our history is remarkable in the sense that we avoided a major revolution and (relatively) peacefully ended apartheid. The government now hopes to “do an America”: they hope to create a sense of nation-hood, fraternity, utilitarianism and patriotism in the same sense that the United States has done so for themselves. Not that what the States has is a good thing.

However, while South Africa has huge potential, the strategy and condition of both the ANC and the country is highly disturbing. Our health minister suggests to the entire international community that we should fight HIV/AIDS with African potatoes and garlic (read the articles here.); the ex-deputy president is shrouded by suspicion after his trials for corruption and rape (during which he stated taking a shower after sex will prevent the spread of HIV); the security minister announced that those who complain about South Africa should just leave; and our president supports countries that the rest of the international community are boycotting.

Recently it was bought to public attention that South Africa is the main destination for human trafficking – neo slavery. Add to this mix a crime rate that is second highest in the world, a rape rate in KZN alone that is highest in the world, corruption and a massive drug market and you have something to be exceptionally proud of.

No one is unaffected by crime. I know people who have been murdered and hijacked and raped. I’m familiar with home intrusions and theft. I know what it’s like to be afraid for your female friends – and that’s just when they want to go to the bathroom in a public place. These notions may seem silly and absurd to an outsider, but they are very real to those of us experiencing it on a day to day basis.

Those “proudly South African” people go on about the wonderful climate, the huge potential, the friendly people, the laid back attitude. Fair, all of these are true – but it’s time for a reality check: the negatives of the situation far outweigh the positives.

Of course I may sound like a cynical, apathetic citizen. However, it becomes difficult to be positive and supportive when the government repeatedly denies and ignores that which is blatantly obvious. The present administration is implementing policies such as AA and BEE to “correct the injustices of the past”.

Fair, past injustices do need to be corrected. However, the current implementation of these strategies impacts on the young, new generation. We were barely alive and conscious during apartheid. We had nothing to do with the injustices of the past. Although the government may not intentionally be “punishing” us, we are certainly suffering in the long run. What employment opportunities do I have? What motivation do I have to succeed? Why should I, as much a South African by birth as the next person, be inspired by the present atmosphere of rising patriotism?

No country is perfect - everywhere has its problems. But South Africa has more than its fair share, and many of these could be solved if effective strategies were thought out and implemented. The Education policy, the Budget allocations, the crime prevention stratagem – the country would be a first world, top notch dream destination (in comparison to the now) if such issues were actually DEALT with, and not just talked about.

I for one cannot wait to emigrate, and I’m well on the road of convincing my family to join me. If we do so, the state is losing another two brilliant educators in the process. But that’s the price that has to be paid for a government that focuses more on its defense force than it does on the needs of its citizens.

I have no roots or heritage here - I don’t feel connected in any way to those around me. I can’t complain in public though - a white South African who complains is racist. Everyone knows that; it’s as common knowledge as 1+1=3.

But then again, we made Africa suffer during colonialism and apartheid, and we rob the country of its potential. It’s only right that we suffer.

Share on Facebook

This post was taken from my Facebook Notebook. Read it and its comments here.

It recently came to my attention that some conservative Americans were offended by my last note on my views on the Great US of A. Shame.

The fact that certain Americans are not willing to engage in debate and discussions about the current world situation illustrates the exact point that I was making in my previous note. I find it ironic that a country that allegedly prides itself on individuality and freedom of speech produces such narrow-minded, sheltered, patriotic and arrogant people.

I have always been against patriotism, perhaps for the reason that I consider myself to have an average intellect - I do not simply accept things people say is true and good and proper as the “truth”.

Yes, I’m in full agreement of being supportive of a cause or performing a “duty” that you feel is your responsibility, obviously within ethical boundaries.

However, I fail to see the democratic, intelligent and logical reasoning behind blindly supporting someone or something: I fail to see how any intelligent being can whole-heartedly justify their undying support for someone, regardless of the circumstances surrounding that someone or the consequences their actions may lead to.

For those proud Americans who were offended, I advise you to stop criticising and open your eyes. Look around you. See where the world is headed. After doing so, if you can honestly say to yourself that “yes, I support everything my country does and stands for”, with no hint of moral or ethical questioning, then I shall pay more heed to your comments.

Until then, try to grasp the concepts of democracy and debate. It is, after all, what your country is apparently all about.

Share on Facebook