Dadaisms

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

What gives a girl power and punch? Is it charm? Is it poise? No, it’s Hairspray!

After the release of Dreamgirls I must admit I was slightly depressed. “Oh no,” I thought, “the musical cycle has already reached its end, a mere 7 years after it began”. My momentary lapse of despair, however, was banished when I watched Hairspray on Friday night.

Hairspray is witty, bright, funny, charming, light, insighful, and full of subtle adult humour. The score is incredible, to the extent that the moment I left the movie-house, I walked into the neighbouring CD shop and purchased the soundtrack. The ensemble of talent includes John Travolta, Christopher Walken and Michelle Pfeiffer (who looks as stunning as ever, even more so as the antagonist).

Apart from its surface appeal, Hairspray is layered with much deeper “messages”. Many people consider musicals light-hearted and entertaining - and to this mould Hairspray is no exception.

However, the emphasis that it places on race and the need to “integrate, not segregate” reflects a view that change and acceptance are imminent, and it is useless to oppose. The film acts as a vehicle for social awareness, and the race paradigm can be extended to include “everyone who is different”.

As I write this I’m looking on Take2 for prebookings of the DVD.

Share on Facebook

When I left high school I was under the impression that all the petty attitudes would be left behind. That those immature and irritating boys and girls who didn’t pay attention and who just scraped a matric would decide to pursue more fruitful ventures without the need to go to a tertiary institution.

I was wrong.

Perhaps it’s just my class in particular. But I sit in lectures day after day, trying to be a good student and listen to the lecturer, yet I always manage to get distracted by the constant sniggering and whispering and giggling that drifts from the back of the room. It completely boggles me: surely if you’re paying a small fortune to go to University you’ll actually pay attention to make sure you get your money’s worth? Surely if you were going to talk and miss the entire lecture you would opt to miss coming to University that day at all? Surely lecturers should be allowed to lob light/slightly heavy objects at the nearest chattering “student”?

I understand that University life is about freedom and relaxing before hitting the “real world”. But come now, there’s a time and a place for everything. Leave the chattering and socialising for after the lecture. It’s highly distracting - for both the nerds in the front and the lecturer - to have a constant stream of inaudible blah-ing from the far extremities of the room.

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

I often wonder how “people” - our parents, advisers, educators - expect us to know what we want to do with our lives. I wonder how “adults” (even though we now technically fall into that mysterious realm) expect us to know where we want to be in the next 5 years. I wonder how they expect us to be so certain of what career we want to follow. And I wonder how they can say “you can do anything you put your mind to”.

When you leave high school - at the age of 17/18 - you are expected to choose, if you want to study, what University you want to go to, and what Degree you want to pursue. The majority of the time, your choices are limited by finance. So you land up choosing the most affordable option. Great. When you get to University, you are presented with sheets of paper with module names that obscurely hint to what the course really involves. So you choose either those modules that sound mildly interesting or those modules that your best friend (either from high school or the new one that you clung to in the registration line only an hour before) is doing.

During the course of that first year, you chop and change so many times from module to module that you become unsure of what you want to land up having at the end of 3 years. In my case, I went from studying Politics to studying Law, to studying English and Ethics, back to studying Law, and eventually - entirely be default - to studying Media and English. I was lucky - I managed to find Majors that I actually enjoy. Others are not so lucky - they continue to be stuck in the quagmire of intellectual sludge that they are immersed in, yet are simultaneously drowning in cluelessness.

At the age of 20/21, now in 3rd year, many of my peers don’t know what they want to do next year. Yet suddenly, next year is THE year - it’s the year that you can start working full time. Fulfill the rite of passage. Become a grown up. Ditch the student life. Become *gulp* independent.

However, some of us want to do Honours. Yet here again we see that vicious cycle repeating itself : expect to know what you want to do. In a flash of deja vu, our options are again limited by the institution we attend and the undergrad degree we have pursued.

What happens after Honours? How do we know “what’s out there”?? Suddenly, after now 15+ years of education and shelter, we’re being thrust onto the pinboard of society, left to fend for ourselves with - technically speaking - no knowledge of what to expect. Am I the only one that is just SLIGHTLY intimidated?

Of course, we could just continue to study forever…

Share on Facebook

Despite all my previous moanings about South Africa, one positive thing I can say is that it’s great to have the freedom of expression considered one of the most important Rights in the country. I was fortunate enough to see this Right stretched to the limit on Friday night.

“Black Mamba”, a political and social satirical comedy, was showing at the Heritage Theatre in Hillcrest, and I had complementary tickets. The show held nothing sacred: every race, every viewpoint and every politician was ripped into tiny pieces during the course of 90 minutes. From “Derek Twats” to “Manto Tshabalala Missing-her-mango”, to a condensed version of the entire history of South Africa, Ben Voss and James Cuningham managed to lay bear the very essence of what it means to be a citizen in this day and age. There is no such thing as “political correctness” or unconditional equality - the production voices views that the media simply alludes to. The sketches are witty, fast-paced, hilariously funny and - above all - a channel for people to reflect on and laugh at the things that they fear most in SA.

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

This post was taken from my Facebook page. Click here to read it.

The American way of life and the American ideology is infuriating. The nation as a whole seeps arrogance and boasts a superiority complex that casts shame on the notions of democracy, freedom and equality.

We’re all sick of the Iraq situation: we’re pounded with images, we’re pounded with anti-war sentiments. However, I cannot help but feel a constant dread when thinking about the future, considering how trigger-happy the superpower seems to be. The war on Iraq on the whole cannot be justified: the invasion had little, if not nothing, to do with 9/11. Similarly, America is not the watchdog of the world: they have no right to infringe on another country’s sovereignty.

Some Americans I have met have had the audacity to say to me that I have no right to comment on the situation, as I am not an American citizen. For some bizarre reason unknown to any intelligent human (George W thus excluded), such people feel that America’s actions do not affect my - our - every day life.

To such narrow-minded and pathetically simplistic ideas I reply: when America is no longer part of the global community; when America’s actions do not affect OUR economy; when America’s actions do not affect my senses of morality; and when America’s actions do not cross international borders, THAT is when I will refrain from having an opinion.

Until such time, I retain the right to be as outspoken and anti-American as I so wish. Obviously, the Patriot Act (so constitutional it makes Mugabe look like a Saint) will disagree with me there. I do not agree with acts of violence. I do not support “terrorism”, no matter which side it is coming from. After all, to many people in the world America is a country of terrorism. Nonetheless, I do not condone any militant action: human life is finite and fragile, and no utilitarian ideology should assume that it has the right to take away such life.

Whilst waffling about Iraq, I pose this question to Americans: why has the government forbidden images of dead American troops being shown on National television? I assume that they want to avoid another Vietnam situation - the government realises the immorality of its actions, and in hopes of preventing total social revolution, it hides the truth.

Odd. The hiding of truth seems to be a recurring feature in American tactics and history.

Share on Facebook