BaldOpinion09
30 May 2012
Ok, so here we are back in
South Africa where the majority holds sway.
This sway is held not because something is right, or wrong, but because
the majority determines the way to go.
Why is it that we forget about
context, about priorities; we also forget that respect, experience and growth
toward maturity – all elements that are earned?
I cannot understand why
people follow blindly. Why do we accept views that are determined by “culture”
without constructive question? Maybe it
is my own blindness. Why do I get the
sense that we are blind to a practice when certain people enact and bright eyed,
even vitriolic, when others do the same thing?
No matter how unreasonable
the practice, or outdated, we chase after the one who questions a culture,
particularly if s/he is not part of that way of life. Why?
Some contend that the ANC has
lost more than its moral compass.
In reference to the 14 year
old girl and King Zwelithini, remember the fracas this caused when people dared
to question? What about the Swazi King Mswati
III who has seven wives and lives large, attends an English Royal wedding and
this, despite his Kingdom being amongst the poorest in the world? Question that
and you’re in trouble.
Readers may refer to this
writing as racist. In South Africa, when you are not able to substantively
argue a point, then you label the one with dissenting view. Today the common refrain is racism. During the
1970’s and 1980’s when it was decided that certain persons were to be discredited
then the label, “police informer / sell-out” was apportioned, remember? The scourge
of community organisation during the heady days of resistance was those, often
among us, who took money from the state in exchange for information.
I am not suggesting that
South Africa has and had no racists and that the past was not plagued by those
who “sold out” to the apartheid government. Of the sell-out people continue to
be politicians, even in the ANC. Today culture is a shield and you use it to
justify why you need so many wives, and as reason for many other socially unacceptable
practices. Racism that is what it is. People who question like this are racists.
Years ago my then colleague,
Thandiwe Kgosidintsi, and I were in conversation. I respected her intellect and her experience
was of another world. I remember many conversations with Thandi. Those about
religion come to mind. “You’re a
Catholic Thandi, and I have spent a substantial portion of my life in environs
influenced by Catholicism, yet… I feel
that the Church and reality, in many respects, are not aligned…” (I have no
reason to be critical of the many splendid Catholic men and women who are my
friends.) However, I have and continue
to question certain practices and beliefs within the faith. Thandi agreed, “But… you know, I know that all of what you say is valid. I go to
church each week because it makes me feel good. I cannot explain it to you. Maybe it is the singing, the incense, others
perhaps. It is much bigger than me, you see. I do not go to the building, to
see the priest, or to marvel at the decorations in the more affluent parish
churches. No, I go to the church to get nourishment for my soul, and it is
something that I get in a Catholic Church.
After all, this is what I am accustomed to…”
Maybe the same applies
elsewhere. We support that which makes us feel most comfortable and often we
have no need, desire, or concern about questioning / examining our practice for
validity in the new world order?
Sis Thandi died two years
ago. It was a heart condition. Thandi
was sad, I think, and I think also that it is fitting that I dedicate this
piece to her memory. I continue to
wonder what my strong resilient, combative and gentle friend would have made of
the recent fiasco sweeping across our South Africa.
You see, the Advocate was
in conversation with a client. “Why did you allow a forensic auditor to change
the document I had written for your signature?” In reply, the Plaintiff, still
shaking, she said, “You should have seen
these people; they were aggressive and I felt intimidated…”
“Yes, but when you
experience an ache in the region of your knee, is it reasonable to consult an
optician…?” – Shame, lawyers also have a role to play.
The Lawyer cried in court.
Yes, Malindi wept. He was representing the South African President in a case
where an artist’s impression included a painted exposed penis. It was a decent
penis; in proportion with the rest of the painting I mean. No, nothing like the David statue, better, I promise,
this was decent.
A silent group, whom I may
not agree with, continue to hold sway that if you have a gripe with what is
immoral and what is not, then do not consult Jacob Zuma; unless you believe
that he has an ability to reason about fairness without allowing old and outdated
cultural practices to determine appropriate behaviour in the new modern world,
particularly if you are the president where the peoples are plural.
“I see, an advocate cried about
your President’s penis”, reads an international text message I received
recently.
I wondered whether all this
howling was because of the penis; was it because the penis had been desecrated;
were the tears as a result of relief, glee, envy, or; perhaps his sob was
informed by the artist’s interpretation, which interpretation the lawyer found
constituted disrespect.
Is culture not defined by
what is practiced over an extended period?
This practice later becomes a norm, the way things are done, culture, voilà!
What is the correlation between
the latter and the historic depiction, which the artist uses to illustrate the
person of our South African President; even though this time the image features
an exposed penis? Is this relevant symbolism or artistic license in need of
censure?
Let’s examine / describe
the subject:
1. He
has Five (05) wives;
2. Is reported
to have a child with his friend's daughter;
3. Has
stood trial for rape;
4. Sports
an affable personality with an inclusive leadership style;
5. Is
the President of one of the leading African countries;
6. Is
alleged to have more than 21 children;
7. Is
older than Seventy (70) years and;
8. Continues
to marry different much younger women –
If
this is the subject and you are the artist, is it not reasonable to include a
healthy penis in your depiction? I mean, what is the role of art if it is not also
to reflect reality, create debate and examine certain practices?
How
can an artist depict the described subject without reference to his enviable
virility?
If
asking these questions makes me racist, then I submit to being incorrigible. There
is no racist as bad as the one who is benign, after all. However, before you
apportion this label, think:
·
Is your labeling me a racist defensible,
given the circumstances;
·
is it justifiable, or;
·
are you using this label to shut me up,
discredit me?
I saw a man being
interviewed on the street the other day.
I saw it on an E TV news broadcast.
Speaking in a particular context, he said “To marry more than one wife
is not love, but lust…” He was speaking as a Zulu man. I question whether this
man is perhaps trying to communicate what he thinks is right in the modern
world, or whether he is merely a sell-out?
View the above as funny,
sexist and discriminatory, help yourself. Remember though, we are here
referring to the President of South Africa.
All South Africans have him as our President. He is my President too.
Meanwhile, here in South
Africa, and on the front page of the Sunday Times, 27 May 2012, is picture of children
learning under various trees and being taught by teachers who are not paid. http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2012/05/27/suffer-the-children
Yes, whilst this
embarrassing act denying our children rains down we bicker about whether a
painting of the President, whom some describe as lascivious, should be depicted
with an exposed penis; whether this is an insult and; whether it is an affront
to the Zulu culture.
I put it to you that this
fiasco we bring upon ourselves is embarrassing.
It is also piffle and trite of law and I wonder whether this is perhaps the
real reason why Malindi shed tears?
It is indeed a crying
shame. I think that we should let the President, the penis, the painting, the gyrating,
and the oft marauding crowds and the large wives, they should all just be man,
let them be. We should allocate this wasted resources and trite, to education so
that the future can be created by teachers who are paid.
I am ashamed, sorry. I herewith apologise to those children, the
ones receiving instruction under a tree in 2012. You will probably never get this message,
children, but I am so sorry and sorry is not medicine, this I do realise. We have to do something about the state of
affairs. We have to shut up and make
this talk about a better life for all real.
Stab the bastard Brutus!
