Holier than thou
The end of apartheid opened the way for many opportunities for black South Africans, the most important having to do with the realisation and confirmation that our African cultural practices and names must be valued and allowed to prosper after decades of being trampled on.
There are now, finally, more African language broadcasts on television and radio than ever before.
The post-1994 period has also seen a sharp drop in the number of black South Africans who systematically give European (so-called “Christian”) names to their offspring. This is a good sign of pride in one’s culture.
I have been particularly fascinated by the language debate, because there are still practical obstacles to be overcome. One still feels offended on domestic SAA flights when passengers are greeted only in English and Afrikaans, when half the passengers are black.
On the other hand, there has also been a sharp growth of “holier- than-thou” Africans who criticise those who are deemed not African enough or “true Africans”.
People’s accents, dress styles, the food they order in restaurants or the manner in which they order it have come under self-righteous critical scrutiny.
I am one of the many black South Africans who are married to or have children with foreigners of all shades and origins. We have children of colour who speak at least one foreign language (if the other partner is not English-speaking) and at least English in South Africa (for practical reasons).
To pass judgement on people based on the language they speak with their children is not fair. It may be practical for two parents of South African origin to insist on their children speaking at least one local African language, but it is not always easy in unions of “international compromise”. To insist on it is hard to understand for a foreign partner, who may also have another language to teach their children.
Let us take pride in ourselves, but let us live and let live. If we were all to decide to live in the manner of our pre-colonial forebears, language would only be one in a long list of things to be affected. Even selective “holier-than-thous” would find it hard to give up their expensive European leather shoes and modern household gadgets! — Nic Moeti, Pretoria
Mayelana ne “Nkosi sikelel’ i-mother tongue” (August 5) — ngithanda ukuthi ngiyavumelana nombono wakho mfethu. Ukhulume kahle impela wemfana wakwababa. — uSpike wakwaKunene
I support the sentiment of the article “Nkosi Sikelel’ i-mother tongue”. The merits of mother tongues, espcially in a culturally diverse country like South Africa, should not even be the subject of debate.
Mahle Kwababa makes the important point that the job of sustaining mother tongues lies primarily in the attitude and conduct of the users of the language in question. His references to how Afrikaans-speakers support Afrikaans in various sectors by using it are valid.
The point must be underlined that when people use their mother tongue, it in no way reflects a negative attitude towards anyone else or their language. — Renier Schoeman, Cape Town
Ndiyamngqinela uMahle, uthetha inyani. — Khaya Dlanga, Diep Rivier
Why do SA writers keep mum?
Two weeks ago in Cape Town, Wole Soyinka called Robert Mugabe “a monster” and urged South Africa to support Commonwealth sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Zimbabweans experience censorship, forced removals, devastating poverty, political intimidation, the repression of free speech and involuntary exile. Why are South African writers who experienced and criticised the same during the apartheid era so silent about their neighbours? — Chris Mann, Grahamstown
Before South Africa lends Zimbabwe anything, civil society, major political parties and the business sector in that country must agree on a progressive political and economic blueprint.
Without an agreement among the Zimbabweans on how best to move forward, it will be a total waste to give Mugabe any form of aid.
Testimony to that is the immature delaying tactics he and his cohorts have used to block South African Council of Churches aid to the millions of Zimbabweans who are suffering. — Ntwampe Morata, Bochum
The opposition parties voiced their opinion on the disadvantages of the proposed loan to Zimbabwe. The International Monetary Fund is an experienced body that is geared to providing such credit, and it has called in its loan. This is obviously a very high-risk deal and South Africa should stay well clear.
Over the years Mugabe is thought to have become one of the world’s wealthiest individuals. Why should South Africans take this risk when he probably could? — J Hill
The money you are giving to Zimbabwe will be buried with Mugabe. — SN, Netherlands
Mushwana ducked his duty
The latest events surrounding Oilgate, and specifically the finding of Public Protector Lawrence Mushwana (pictured above) are mystifying.
The investigation was concluded surprisingly quickly and the protector’s report was disparaging in its dismissal of the allegations. In a chorus-like fashion, Cabinet ministers and senior African National Congress members pronounced the matter closed.
Logic dictates that either an ill-considered finding was arrived at or there was a politically motivated cover-up.
In effect, Mushwana’s report condones money-laundering — the cornerstone of illegal activity. Public money was shifted into a private entity’s bank account to support a commercial transaction. Surely this contravenes the Financial Intelligence Centre Act?
The report acknowledges dubious financial transactions, but perplexingly ignores the weight of the basic evidence. In so doing, Mushwana has abrogated his duty. Neither the transactional source nor its destination determines or limits whether there has been corruption — the key is the intention and outcome of the transaction.
Mushwana is part of the machinery that is constitutionally bound to do battle with corruption, and must be seen to use all the tools available to him, without favour. He must have the courage to continue the work of moulding our society into a truly just one, rather than merely protecting those with power or money.
If he cannot, he must be replaced. — Lance Levitas, Johannesburg
Review got it all wrong
Shaun de Waal’s review of Zulu Love Letter (August 5) got it all wrong.
Some of the things that he highlighted as weaknesses — the fact that there’s no clear resolution, for instance — were its strengths. I also found it unfair that he drew parallels between Zulu Love Letter and In My Country, a film that thoroughly disappointed me.
Zulu Love Letter was far more sensitive in its handling of the continuing repercussions of apartheid brutality on the lives of South African women. It didn’t buy into any of the candy-coated versions of Ubuntu that In My Country espoused to make the film readily consumable internationally.
Zulu Love Letter‘s handling of questions of truth and reconciliation was also much more careful, and the film demanded much more of its audience. The resolutions De Waal wanted were absent for those South Africans for whom the truth commission did not offer release from the past.
For a film to impose closure and narrative coherence on the experience of trauma would have been irresponsible. Zulu Love Letter succeeds at avoiding these pitfalls while offering glimpses of hope for the future. — Helene Strauss, University of Western Ontario, Canada
No cash crunch for cricket
Far from the United Cricket Board (UCB) being “stumped by a cash crunch” (July 29), South African cricket is on a sound financial footing and has the full backing of major sponsors and the public. Media speculation that cricket could be bankrupt within 18 months is nonsense.
The UCB has embarked on a reconstruction process in a timely and proactive manner. This is hardly a financial crisis that has caught it unawares.
The UCB’s annual report, released last Saturday, shows we have achieved an operating profit when an operating loss was predicted in earlier budgets, with a turnaround of R16-million.
We have increased our sponsorship base annually by R25-million over the last season. Record crowds attended matches last season and TV audiences were bigger than ever.
We have the backing of major sponsors such as Standard Bank, SAB, SABC, SuperSport, National Brands, SAA, Southern Sun, Mutual & Federal, Coca-Cola, PG Bison, Energade, Budget and Hummel.
MTN has decided not to renew its contract to focus on football and the World Cup 2010. Its contribution will be taken up by other sponsors, and details will be announced soon.
The new franchise system for professional domestic cricket was successfully launched last season. This has put an end to escalating costs compared with the cumbersome 11-team system, and the strength-vs-strength product has been welcomed by players, sponsors and the public.
Another new sponsorship is the Standard Bank Pro20 Series, which has proved a winner.
We have also been able to increase, comparing 2003/04 with 2004/05, our allocations to affiliates for amateur cricket by R15-million off a base of R30-million.
We were hit hard by the strong rand, which denied us the opportunity of returning a healthy surplus that would have increased our reserves. Had the rand-dollar exchange rate remained as it was three years ago, we would have had an extra R50-million in the 2004/05 season.
Affiliates were cautioned that the next three years were likely to see foreign TV revenues dropping compared with the bumper England tour of last season.
Some media commentators are misinterpreting our belt-tightening message as signalling a financial crisis. It is obvious that we have to find ways of expanding revenue sights beyond international TV rights, and to continue improving efficiencies and reducing costs. — Gerald Majola, CEO, United Cricket Board
There’s only one nuclear industry
Your article and editorial regarding the hypocritical United States decision to recog-nise India as a nuclear power (July 22) neglected a significant aspect of the deal — the US business opportunities driving the policy change.
While India gives no indication it will reconsider its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or accept monitoring of its military nuclear facilities, it has the leverage of a rapidly expanding energy sector to gain legitimacy for its weapons of mass destruction (that is, the removal of targeted sanctions).
General Electric (GE), the only US-owned company still in the nuclear power business, was forced to leave the Indian nuclear power market in 1974 when India conducted its first nuclear test. GE chief executive Jeff Immelt joined India’s prime minister at George W Bush’s table at the celebratory dinner. Immelt predicted in May that GE revenues from India could reach $5-billion in 2010.
The promoters of South Africa’s latest nuclear venture, the pebble bed modular reactor, seek to present the “civilian” nuclear industry as unconnected to military applications, denying its historical and ongoing role in facilitating nuclear weapons proliferation. The Bush administration doesn’t bother with such a charade as it seeks to overturn long-standing policy designed to introduce and enforce such a separation. When you have the largest arsenal, why worry that there is only one nuclear industry? — Richard Worthington, Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg
‘United Nations’
While noting, on Women’s Day, the notable achievements of South Africa’s black women over the past 10 years, it is a bad reflection that many of them are still contributing to the uncontrollable mushrooming of the “United Nations”.
This is township language for women or men with more than two children by different biological partners. And in many cases men, including some of the most prominent in our society, continue to deny paternity and fail to maintain their children.
It seems the broader society has finally accepted the “United Nations” without questioning its negative impact on moral values. — Lesego Sechaba Mogotsi, Tshwane
E-mail a letter to the editor
Please include your name and address. Letters must be received by 5pm Monday. Be as brief as possible. The editor reserves the right to edit letters and to withhold from publication any letter which he believes contains factual inaccuracies, or is based on misrepresentation.