Since 1994, there has been a lot of talk about South Africa’s lost generation — the Y generation that is apathetic, apolitical, consumerist and vulnerable to a range of social ills, such as substance abuse and Aids.
More recently, we have heard talk of the so-called born-frees growing up in ignorance of the hardships that our heroes faced as they fought for the very freedoms that are taken for granted today. In fact, many complain that born-frees would not even recognise a captioned photograph of any 80s Struggle icon — even if it were on a Truworths T-shirt. Too often, I have heard the parents of these born-frees complain about the demands these children make upon them. They desire branded goods by PlayStation, JD Bug, Wii, Xbox, Nintendo, YDE, Diesel, Levi, Guess, Ed Hardy, Nokia, BlackBerry, Prada, Jimmy Choo, Nike, adidas, and Puma. Anything less will not do.
I have also heard many complaints from school teachers about pupils who are ill-disciplined and who do not respect authority. A large part of the average teaching day is dedicated to addressing those who speak out of turn.
The argument is that the “youth of today” are so concerned with branded commodities and partying that they do not care for politics or social issues. Indeed, there has been a great deal of talk about the “youth of today”, but little has been done to address these concerns. That is, until the ANCYL took it upon itself to make nationalisation of the mines a top priority.
Many critics would argue that the most pressing challenges our youth face today are poor education; violence; substance abuse; Aids; poor healthcare and living conditions — not nationalisation of the mines. Many would even say that the league’s nationalisation agenda is motivated by self-interest, given that its leaders have reportedly become crony capitalists through BEE deals and alleged tender irregularities. This is patently not the case.
The ANCYL’s vocal support for the media appeals tribunal and nationalisation as well as the ANC and SACP’s support for the Protection of Information Bill are all indicators that they are not motivated by self-interest. Instead, they are attempting to address the very concerns about our “youth of today”.
If born-frees are taking our democratic freedoms for granted, then perhaps a programme of action that will educate our youth about democracy should be implemented. Perhaps youth should be systematically stripped of the rights that they take for granted. If they were free to speak on MTN, then they certainly should not be free to speak under the new dispensation. Freedom comes at a price. What better way to do this than to make an example of unruly journalists and then slowly make your way down to the others who speak recklessly? Speech will then be a precious commodity that will be treasured like a pair of Choos.
The call for nationalisation is another brilliant strategy for achieving this educational agenda — call it experiential learning, if you will. State monopolisation of the mining industries could work as well as many of the parastatals like Eskom or Telkom. Granted, talk of nationalisation has always been met with threats of disinvestment and the crashing of the economy, but these projected hardships will teach our youth that money really is not everything. It will not come to that just yet, though.
It is more likely that nationalisation will benefit its advocates, to whom we may entrust the task of generating wealth and devising rolling plans of action for the trickle-down of that wealth to the selected masses. This is where our youth will learn the strategic value of speech that ensures their own personal success as they learn to network with the new patrons of their freedom, the new generation of the ANC — that generation that waits impatiently to take up its throne on the new incarnation of the NEC. Needless to say, the wretched Frantz Fanon will be banned from university curricula.
Eish Adam – how many times do I have to read you before I will learn that you are a brilliant satirist and not to be taken so seriosuly!
Brilliant, as usual. (Damn, second time I said that today! – predictable, as usual)
@ Adam
Thoroughly enjoyed this. Sadly, you are likely to get a negative response from those unfamiliar with the strategy of the facetious comment…
Very smart – very witty and very dry.
Many of us share your frustration Adam. Let it all out!
A very interesting take on the situation and I couldn’t agree with you more. Perhaps our youth must learn that the price of freedom is self-dicipline, if not learnt from their elders, hog-tied by our well-meaning SAHRC, then through a surfeit of “Zieg Heils” and a curbing of that most precious of rights, the freedom of thought. Perhaps then they will appreciate that the freedom they now enjoy to emulate prisoner and gangster culture were not just won by those like Chris Hani who threw off the shackles of slavery to win the right of freedom of thought, but also those like Helen Suzman and Van Zyl Slabbert, who threw off the shackles of nationalism, so that all South Africans could be free. Freedom is a state of mind which implies being one’s own master, with all the responsibilities to society that comes with the status.
ROFLMFAO!! & so too would Fanon if he were with us.
Excellent and thoughtful analysis of contemporary young people, but then they had the very good example of averice, greed, mendacity and materialistic self –interest of our leaders in government and the ANC
the reality is that the future belongs to the youth their disengagement is their loss. we should promote responsibility at all fronts. it is sad that prisons are full of youth, hospitals full of dying youth suffering from AIDS related sicknesses,unemployment, young parents festing on social grants, divorces the list is endless. our youth need to be more proactive than to worry of nationalisation which to this end has no clear cut policy
The saddest irony of all, perhaps, would be for born-frees to inherit a South Africa that made them believe that freedom isn’t everything…it’s just relative.
Spot on @Adam. I suppose there are two ways to engender a love of freedom, one, deprive people of their freedom [what your post,tongue in cheek, advocates],or two, encourage people to exercise their freedom in a disciplined and mutually enhancing way.
The first option will lead a small minority to struggle for freedom as we experienced under Apartheid.
The second option, @Bigman refers to it, is the correct one and much more difficult for society to implement, and this applies particularly to the leadership, hence the complaints about contemporary young people but really the fault lies with the lack of leadership.
The born free’s, my grandchildren, aptly described. The task to make them politically aware continues amongst much “ag oupa, it will be different when we are working and in charge”.
Let’s hope they have been born with second site?
Fantastic piece. The same could apply to the apathetic middle class.
Most droll. Of course the ANCYl et al shouldn’t forget how the Old Evil regime underestimated the response of young people back in ’76.
Just because the youth of today do not appear to be interested in the things that their elders believe they should be interested in doesn’t mean that they are incapable of passion.
@ Adam
I agree with the general sentiment that youth today does not care much about politics.Why should they if they are “born frees” who do not have to contend with “the dompas” and the “special”[permit to work or seek jobs in urban areas]. Should we not rejoice at this fact?
However you also say (1)”They desire branded goods by PlayStation, JD Bug, Wii, Xbox, Nintendo, YDE, Diesel, Levi, Guess, Ed Hardy, Nokia, BlackBerry, Prada, Jimmy Choo, Nike, adidas, and Puma”
and (2)”Many critics would argue that the most pressing challenges our youth face today are poor education; violence; substance abuse; Aids; poor healthcare and living conditions”.
Are we talking about the same “youth ” in (1) and (2) Which youth face which challenges?
Children of rich politicians and business people who live in expensive gated suburbs may face some of the challenges in 2 but not “poor education; violence; poor healthcare and living conditions”.It is the poor who face such problems
By the same token poor kids in squatter camps do not want “PlayStation, JD Bug, Wii, Xbox, Nintendo, YDE, Diesel, Levi, Guess, Ed Hardy, Nokia, BlackBerry,”. All they want as top priorities “schools in which teachers do not go on strike”, “three square meals a day”and “good living conditions. When these “basic needs are met they can start thinking about “playstations” which go very well with 46 inch full HD LED TV , gated suburbs etc etc.
Good one Adam
The price of freedom is never paid. Once freedom is attained the fight to keep it must continue. As soon as guards are lowered and the diseases of domination are ignored, freedom will be lost again. Its a cycle that we must be aware of at all times. Freedom is not a destination, its a life long journey.
Where is Dave Harris and the other ANC sycophants when a fantastic article like this is written?
@Thandinkosi – You are so wrong. The last mugger I met was kitted out in many of the brandnames mentioned and the last burglar left a beautiful Nike footprint in my garden. You obviously do not know these poor kids, I see them on a daily basis and can tell you they are (mostly) more interested in flashy gear, fast cars, the latest electronics and taking drugs to forget their poverty. Most have a healthy disrespect of education since they’ve seen that education takes you nowhere, whereas “connections” and a great image can take you right to the top. We really can’t blame them, it is the examples we’ve set them. The ANC fought for the right to be taught real knowledge then dumbed down all education to the detriment of all children.
Dont give up on our Youth , Mate.
The future is with them and they might just surprise you’all
I do wonder, somewhat rhetorically, how much of the ANCYL hierarcgy was even alive in 1976 … But the ‘youth of today’ lament must date from early 1960s America and so is both nothing new and why this lovely satirical piece resonates so well.
@ X Cepting
I am sure you agree with Adam Haupt that IN GENERAL youth today is “apolitical”.By way of example I completed my degree at Fort Hare in 1976.Everyone in Fort hare knew who the Vice Chancellor was (Prof de Wit)as well as the top management of the university). We also attended several political students meetings
On the other hand my two sons graduated from Wits in 2009.They had no Idea who the vice Chancellor was (Prof Loyiso Nongxa who was my contemporary at Fort Hare). They also did not attend any political students meeting (at least so they tell me and I believe them.)
However it is hard to speak about the youth IN GENERAL as these are a very diverse group.The point i was trying to make was simply this (1) My sons come from a relatively affluent background. As I am talking one of them is playing a sony playstation on an a 46 inch LED TV in my living room . He just bought another dvd for the playstation .
(2) I doubt if that what the “typical poor youth”who lives in a squatter camp is doing. Maybe he is worried that about what do do with his sick mother as public hospitals are on strike and there is no money for private health care in his home!
(3)You make the point that “The last mugger …..last burglar..”Are you talking about “TYPICAL YOUTH” or “CROOKED YOUTH?”
@Thandinkosi – apologies for a late reply. I should probably have made myself clearer. The connection between young muggers, young burglars and poor youth in economically depressed areas. I was obviously objecting to your statement that kids in poor areas want three square meals, etc. No, if they are kids, they want what everyone else’s kids have. The mugger was a youth and definitely not from a well-off background and neither was the burglar who was not a professional (i.e. older, more experienced) and young, judging by his tools, methods and the items stolen. The ordinary uncorrupt poor youth that is visible to me daily, share the same wants, judging by their dress, pursuits and conversations.
In other words all kids, rich, poor, good or bad wants that which will make them more acceptable and popular wit their peers, no matter how irrational those choices seem to adults.
I am a medical student (so I think I still count as a youth) and was in Piet Retief (a very rural setting) at the time of the nurses’ strike. I saw many things I would prefer to forget, but I can say there is a massive difference between an urban youth mugging you and the rural 13 year old girl giving birth because she was raped. And keeping the baby because the R210 pm means food on the table. I can not find it in my heart to blame the children (or the children of the children) in this situation for being apathetic. (The average black kid in Piet Retief has no future, has sex and therefore HIV because there is no other entertainment and can’t speak english – so how could they get a job, nevermind a university education) The degree of problems we see in an urban environment is nothing compared to the horrors in rural settings.
Many of the problems I see are simply the fruits of having too many children when you can’t afford them, political leaders/elders/parents who only look out for number one and no education… Our problems are different, they are fundamentals gone wrong. Politicians can continue talking above the level of the problem – mines and other things far away from our reality.
My generation’s situation looks dire – many live short lives – can you blame them for cutting to the enjoyment that they can have?