I recall a conversation I had with my Iranian-American friend Farhang Erfani when I was living in the US and despairing for that country after George W Bush’s (to my mind) fraudulent election as president ahead of Al Gore. When I expressed my misgivings about America’s future under ”presidents” like George Dubya, he pointed out to me that while there was much to criticise in the US, one should never forget that the most mercilessly outspoken critics of the US are themselves Americans. I stood chastised — after all, is there a more relentless critic of the US than Noam Chomsky, himself an American, or David Harvey, or Fredric Jameson — all of them Americans?
I mention this to make the point that, whatever one may think of the US, it is demonstrably a democracy as far as freedom of expression goes — no matter how unpalatable an American’s opinion on matters political, cultural, religious, military or whatever, you can articulate it, knowing that you can expect flak in return, but not charges of ”treason’’ if you happen to have said something that is implicitly or explicitly critical of the governing party.
A case in point is Kathryn Bigelow’s recent film, Zero Dark Thirty, a film about the hunt for and eventual assassination of Osama bin Laden, which has exceeded even the degree of controversy that Bigelow anticipated. The reason? Many critics (including some US senators) perceive the film — in the making of which the CIA cooperated with Bigelow by making crucial material available to her — as establishing a causal connection between American “enhanced interrogation” (a euphemism for torture such as the notorious waterboarding) and the fact that Bin Laden was eventually traced to a compound in Pakistan.
In South Africa that would probably have earned her a severe rebuke from the ANC, plus a charge of ”treason” from ANCYL. In the US it’s par for the course — she is quite within her rights to make that suggestion, directly or indirectly. Strange as it might sound to those South Africans who shiver in their shoes the moment the governing party’s spokespeople as much as open their mouths to speak, we are quite within our rights to do the same here. And that includes FNB or any other company that runs an advertising campaign which implicitly points the finger at the ANC for not doing its job properly as far as education or crime is concerned (and one can add many other areas of governmental responsibility, such as the terrible state of our roads in certain areas).
This is so especially because all the evidence points to exactly such a state of affairs: no one is secure on South Africa’s streets, or within their homes for that matter. (And not all of us are surrounded by a cohort of bodyguards.) Witness the ”flourishing” private security industry — there’s a reason for this. And our school education system is rated as among the worst in the world. Methinks FNB had every reason NOT to back down when facing threatening discourse from the ANC and ANCYL.
To strengthen democracy and avoid the slippery slope towards one-party dictatorship, one should always keep the following in mind. Do not allow the governing party — no matter what party it is — to bully you into cow-towing to it when you have criticised it for legitimate reasons. Our Constitution enshrines the principle of freedom of expression, and with the exception of hate speech and its variants, citizens of South Africa are entitled to express their disapproval, as well as their approval, of the actions on the part of the representatives of the governing party. Should the latter take exception to criticism freely expressed, it is fine — it is similarly entitled to such exception.
But a negative response to criticism on the part of the governing party, even when phrased in threatening or intimidating language designed to make critics feel guilty, afraid or somehow disloyal to “the country”, should never be allowed to have the effect of critics retracting the criticism they expressed in the first place, especially if such criticism was well-founded. If they do, they strengthen the impression that governing parties are above criticism, or can do no wrong, and they pave the way to one-party dictatorship, or, for that matter, fascist rule.
Remember that fascism — which easily develops, unnoticed, under one’s nose — is characterized by dictatorial, controlling attitudes and intolerance regarding difference of opinion. When such intolerance and dictatorial attitudes first make their appearance on the part of a governing party, it should be repudiated in the strongest of terms, instead of grovelling before the party. Such grovelling reinforces intolerance and dictatorial behaviour because it seems to justify such behaviour.
(See in this regard my earlier post on the signs of proto-fascism.)
The present worrying signs that democracy is under severe threat in this country reminds me of 1989, when I was part of a group of white academics and other professionals who met the ANC in Lusaka to discuss the transition to democracy in the event of its being unbanned. On the trip we also visited Harare and Windhoek, and I recall being addressed in Harare by Didymus Mutasa, who was then (if I recall correctly) speaker of the Zimbabwean parliament. In the course of discussing the prerequisites for democracy, Mutasa (who later became a cabinet minister) evidently felt obliged to correct what he saw as a fundamental error on the part of whites in Africa. Democracy in Africa, he averred, is not like the multiparty democracy us whiteys valorise. In Africa, he insisted, democracy means having one political party and one either belongs to it and votes for it or you don’t.
There was much debate among the members of our group about the merits of Mutasa’s claim and in the end we were largely convinced that he was wrong. Especially after our conference with members of the ANC in Lusaka where we were all impressed by the democratic sentiments expressed by them. But given the recent events in South Africa, which are symptomatic of what I would call un-democratic behaviour on the part of the governing party, I’ve been wondering: is this a manifestation of the “one-party African democracy” (an interesting oxymoron) that Mutasa was talking about in 1989?
@Bert, I personally believe that the doom and gloom amongst some of us is a permanent reality. When we discuss, ANC or govt it seems that someone needs to take from an exact science (one which is only known to them) and measure ANC or govt against this science. Also, it seems that we simply cannot help ourselves by using America as the prime example. America of course is the worst example of gross abuse, gross misrepresention and human abuses & Guantanamo Bay, a detention centre. One only has to look at the reality of the native Indians, their mass murder and the gross inhumane conditions they are subjected to. But the recent examples has got to be this very issue of Muslim/Arabs in America. If you havent read about their marginalisation and the shutting out of their communities in all spheres of life then this ‘blindness’has to be remedied. Your title suggests that ANC is a bully and it raises the innuendo that society at large is bullied at every turn. We know this is not so and we know that the suggestion is far fetched. In reality, I wish that ANC would bully some amongst us so that they can stop wallowing in their misery and disloyalty. Our society is much freer than it ever was. I am able to marry ANY person and I am able to swim at ANY beach. And yet, these very basic things are forgotten when you hold up this exact science. Actually we are gatvol of the whingeing and really if you dont like this country, then go back to where you think ”heaven” awaits you.
Huh? Who is Prof. Olivier addressing, here?
What’s controversial about Bigelow’s film is that it claims, quite falsely, that the CIA found Osama Bin Laden by torturing people, and it makes a strong case in support of torturing people as a product of that. If the ANC chose to rebuke a film which told lies in support of vicious and sadistic opinions, I think they would deserve support for that.
Indeed, what could be more authoritarian than torturing people whom you don’t approve of to death? That’s positively Syrian.
Granted, people shouldn’t allow themselves to be bullied by the ANC. They also shouldn’t allow themselves to be bullied by other organisations.
Bert, well written
The problem here is, our political elite are allowed to lie to our faces and nothing happens. We do not have enough people to hold them accountable for the lies they tell.
Let one person from outside the inner circle make a disparaging comment and they fly off the handle and make false and disparaging comments, attacking the commentator personally.
The resemblance of the ANC to Lance Armstrong in the manner in which they both react to any criticism has not gone unnoticed! How often do the ANC respond to any criticism with a factual rebuttal first, and then maybe attack the commentator’s intentions.
The tone has been set a long time ago. Ask yourself the question. How many legal cases has Barack Obama instituted against detractors compared to our own President. And boy, if we think Zuma has been attacked, there’s been some shockers against Obama. Just see what Donald Trump has said about him……
Its all about emotional maturity, our leaders are severly lacking in that departnemt!
The majority of political parties do not take kindly to critisism the ANC being no exception. What is of concern is their reaction. There must be a growing alarm even from within their own ranks, that any critism whether it be constructive or not, is almost immediately met with self-righteousness, vengefulness and aggression, notwithstanding threats of violent retribution.
A major cause for concern in any democracy.
@Bert, in Professor Mbembe’s book “PostColony” he claims the ruling parties in Africa have made zombies out of the masses. In black Africa the people are not middle class and can’t live without the government like in the US so, this is why the people in Africa are afraid to openly criticize the government. In the US, there is a large middle class of people that don’t need the government to survive so, this is why the biggest critics of the government are Americans.
Tofolux – I am ONLY focussing on one aspect of American society here, namely their freedom of expression. Why are you dragging Guantanamo Bay and the marginalization of Muslims in by the hair? Of course I do not condone those practices. But no one in the US would call you a traitor if you say what you believe, whether it is true or not – and even if they do, you are protected (as indeed we are, but you would not think so when you see how people back down as soon as Big Brother ANC opens its mouth).
And by the way – I did not call this piece ‘Don’t let the ANC bully you’ – it was the TL editors that changed my title to that. My title was ‘Freedom of expression and the spirit of democracy’. Far less sensationalistic, don’t you think? Look at the point made by Skumbuzo, above about abuse thrown at Obama in the US, with ne’er a comparable allergic reaction on the part of the Democrats. While here one would swear that the Bill of Rights part of the SA Constitution does not exist!
Without disagreeing with what Bert says here, it should be clear that different views on what constitutes ‘democracy’ cannot be settled by argument about what’s the right or wrong definition, but by us as individuals deciding for ourselves which institutional form we believe it should take. This is probably more an historical process than a political one.
One could argue, for instance, that ‘democracy” is not exactly ‘under threat’ in this country because SA is not a democracy at this time but a monocracy that may or may not become more democratic in future. The danger of authoritarian rule is for obvious reasons increased anywhere there is only one party and SA has one ‘ruling party’ now because of history. Before the ANC it had another ruling party because of history.
Apart from calling the ANC fascists and repeatedly peddling your tired DA politics you, like many other beneficiaries of apartheid seem to misunderstand the very nature of what a democracy really means! Seems like you subscribe to the bizarre ideology of rabid neocon Republicans in the US, like Mitt Romney (US presidential candidate), you believe that “corporations are people too”. As a bank, This delusional view was soundly rejected in their last elections. Corporate political entities enable the 1% to rule over the majority in perpetuity. Other smaller companies e.g. Nandos have also tried to to exercise influence national politics by hiding behind our hard fought for, free speech rights. This kind of “satire” is employed by corporations to to peddle the divisive politics of the DA, is destructive to our society and the stability of our democracy in the long term because they only represent the interests of the 1%. FNB needs to decide whether it wants to be a bank or a political party.
Like the rabid DA supporters, these out of control corporate BANKSTERS represents the vilest aspects of human nature – their insatiable greed that triggered the worst world wide recession in living memory! If FNB was truly interested in uplifting people from poverty, it should first start by working together with other BANKSTERS, by not raping the poor with exorbitant bank fees, promoting more blacks into executive management, cease the blatant exploitation the middle class with…
…middle class with outrageous interest rates! For FNB to now engage in partisan politics by pretending to act in the best interests of society using innocent children shows how brazen they’ve become.
@Tofolux, you talked about how the US treated the Native Americans but, you never mention the black slaves that were taken out of Africa. The reason why you didn’t mention these people because the Africans traded off these people to the slave traders. You said if people don’t like this country they should find another home and this is what Bert is saying about American. The people that criticized the US are the Americans people themselves and nobody try to bully them.
The epidemic of bullying is staggering in our society today, locally and globally. It is no longer a case of playground politics, if ever it was, which I doubt. The playground now is our very world and lives, each of us. And resisting the bullies is a moral imperative for those who believe in what they proclaim. But the price is very, very high. Bullying is not only limited to traditional categories of party or governmental politics – it truly reveals to us the everyday banality of evil at all levels. And it breeds and feeds in silence and compliance. How good systems do bad things is a subtext to our very lives today. The contagion of fear resulting from the ripple effect of bullying spreads like wild fire and with vengeance. And the saddest thing is this: the bullies don’t learn or change. Unlikely. Much has been said about the sincerity or not of Lance Armstrong’s confessions. But he has given us a new concept to use in contemplating the bullies in our lives – bullying is ultimately always about ‘controling the narrative’; ‘controling the story to hide the truth’. When was the last time you controlled the narrative in this way? Thank you, Bert, for speaking up.
I want to point out that it’s instructive that Bert needs to pose the question – Is SA an example of ‘one-party African democracy’ – when it appears self-evident that it is. It shows the power of repetition: keep telling people they have democracy and freedom and a large number of them are going to accept that. But only for a while. Remember what Lincoln said about fooling the people?
As a result, there is a very remarkable degree of confusion about how SA’s situation can be changed for the better, or if it can be. A very popular solution is to insist we need leadership – a ‘leader’. Now would that be another Mandela or another Mugabe? A Hitler, perhaps, a Lenin or Stalin? There were guys who really got thing done.
Everyone must decide for themselves whether it can be as simple as finding the right leader.
Incidentally Dave Harris will be interested to know that I agree with him that FNB needs to decide whether it’s a bank or a political party. But then, alas, perhaps he won’t. http://paulwhelanwriting.blogspot.com/2013/01/does-first-national-bank-have-right-to.html?m=1
Creator – For a university lecturer such as yourself to claim categorically that Bigelow’s film’s implication that there was a link between torture and finding bin Laden is ‘false’, is disingenuous on your part – do you know that for a fact? No – neither did she, when she made the film, but given the (widely reported) information she got from the CIA it was a good guess that such a link existed. In any case, my point is that she CAN make this suggestion, and no one – like our intolerant Tofolux, above – will tell her to find another home.
Sterling – Good points, both. Thank you for that.
Paul – Part of the problem of not understanding what democracy means (and not only in this country), is the over-reliance on a leader – ONE leader. The literature on fascism points out clearly that the growth of fascism is linked to what is perceived as a ‘charismatic leader’, who can do no wrong. The initial successes of Tahrir Square resulted from the fact that the protesters had no clearly identifiable leaders, but regrouped in new formations from day to day, and their enemies thus had no one to ‘negotiate with’ (i.e. co-opt for their own purposes). I agree that we do not, in FACT, have a functioning democracy in SA, but we do have a democratic constitution that we can appeal to when our freedom of speech is infringed upon.
Belinda – Thank you for your articulate response. It is shocking that we are witnessing such a growth in bullying worldwide.
@Tofolux
“Actually we are gatvol of the whingeing and really if you dont like this country, then go back to where you think ”heaven” awaits you.”
Thanks. I think many of us who actually want to support the ANC feel that way about its current leadership.
We wish they would go back to the ANC detention camps like Camp Quatro in Angola where they would feel very much at home.
@Dave Harris
You say: “Corporate political entities enable the 1% to rule over the majority in perpetuity. Other smaller companies e.g. Nandos have also tried to to exercise influence national politics by hiding behind our hard fought for, free speech rights. This kind of “satire” is employed by corporations to to peddle the divisive politics of of the DA, is destructive to our society and the stability of our democracy in the long term because they only represent the interests of the 1%.”
HOWEVER:
“Chancellor House is a South African group of companies active in the mining, engineering, energy and information technology sectors.[1] It is named after Chancellor House, the building where the law firm of Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo was located.[2]
After initially being exposed as a surreptitious funding front for the African National Congress it was subsequently acknowledged as an in-house investment firm for the party.[3] It is best known for the controversy surrounding the award to it of lucrative black economic empowerment and parastatal contracts.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancellor_House_%28company%29
WAKE UP MR HARRIS!!!
.
This article does not surprise me at all – it confirms the upshot of the ANC’s African nationalism:
http://za.news.yahoo.com/anc-most-racist-party-024053065.html
@Bert
re: above article you posted.
I have noticed increased racist rhetoric from the ANC leadership, and on blog sites from their supporters in the last six months. As the current leadership feel threatened, they have to identify an enemy to rally the party faithful. Divide and rule.
We are in for tough times, which will not be in the spirit of Nelson Mandela’s Rainbow Nation dream.
@Whelan, I have been commenting on the democracy in SA and I see that someone in SA agrees with me. In SA the country is run by king makers and these are the people making all of the decisions. The people in SA can’t elect none of the people in the government and hold them accountable for their behavior.
I wonder what Mandela, who is a real democrat, thinks of the ANC’s present anti-democratic behaviour!
@Paul & Bert
A big part of the democracy equation that is often missed – is institutions. Why Nations Fail by Robinson and Acemoglu reminds us of this often overlooked aspect. Institutional failure at government level in South Africa is rife – leading to a loss in political legitimacy (of those institutions) and political capital. It is also partly why the chattering classes in SA place such a big emphasis on leadership. Leadership is important, but far less decisive in an environment with properly functioning institutions. Of course it is not just about having these institutions, but about their rules and the outcomes they encourage. Like markets (also institutional arrangements) the more competition, information and participation the more robust those institutions.
It is also why Tahir square did not result in the revolution that many predicted. Elections and popular participation is not a proper substitute for robust democratic institutions and a political culture that builds and shape these institutions. A lesson that classic liberals have been preaching for a long time (Hayek being a great examples, but also modern thinkers like Buchanan and both Ostroms), but often ignored by people with utopian visions of direct democracy and popular street revolts.
@ Belinda: Your eloquent characterisation of bullying reminds me of something a friend has confided in me about an occurrence at an institution where one would least expect it in South Africa, and the details of which I cannot divulge here, lest my friend’s position be compromised. Suffice to say that it concerns one of the most egregious cases of “bullying” I have ever heard of, to the point of the victim being bullied right out of the institution. I am Mexican myself, and am inclined to believe that the Latin temperament of my people is such that they instinctively resist “compliance”. That is what bullying is finally about – forcing people into “compliance”, which is what is used widely for purposes of rule in the new world order. Fortunately, not everyone is as susceptible to compliance as the Australians are!
It is funny how Dave Harris and Tofulux ascribe a different point of view to the DA, when nowhere in this article was there any reference to this party. So basically when the author is recommending that all citizens (regardless of political afiliation) are brave enough to make a stand on issues they agree/disagree with the general response is to chastise that person for being devisive and the opposition.
Guys, you dont have to be white and vote for the DA to disagree with the ANC. Just thought you might need to know that.
@Sterling Ferguson – Yes, though I like to think not only the two of us but also an increasing number of people are beginning to realize SA is not a ‘democracy’ at this time simply because it is called one.
It seems to me obvious that in practice SA is a one-party state, though one with a democratic constitution, as Bert points out. That is why many consider the constitution is at risk: the present situation constitutes ‘democracy’ only if democracy is taken to mean rule by one party that is believed to speak for an abstraction known as ‘the people’.
I do not believe that. Like you, I believe real people speak for themselves.
@HD – As always, you and I see very much eye-to-eye, though I would underline your point that institutions are an expression of the culture you see to be crucial, as well as the builder of it. The two are bound up inextricably and it is quite impossible to say which comes first or ’causes’ which.
What I see as plainly missing in SA at this time, though, are not the institutions, but the democratic culture. Our ‘democracy’ was hot-housed rather than grown naturally. That’s why it’s a such a delicate flower, even requiring intensive care, exposed in the open air.
@Tofolux and Dave Harris:
Got any other ponies you could ride?
@HD:
Nail on the head. Watch Egypt carefully. The more things change, the more they change the same. It’s not about leadership as such. Ghandi famously said he has to look where his people are going so that he may lead them. Egypt had a leadership change but by no means a regime change. Same could be said for the much vaunted Arab Spring uprisings.
Back on topic: It should come as no surprise that the ANC is a fascist organisation. Any political ideology driven by idealistic equality has to snip off the ends that don’t fit.
@Paul
Agree. But referring to culture is so politically incorrect these days.
Not all institutions are entirely by conscious design, but rather evolve in the spontaneous amalgamation of ideas, successful practices and other forms of social/cultural adaption that lead to their creation. This is very much the aspects of institutional design that I would like to emphasize. In fact, Hayek warned of the dangers of what he called rational constructivism – the believe that you can rationally design society.
What we “see” in SA is “institutional failure”, but the underlying causes are wrapped up as you correctly point out in cultural aspects (including the rhetoric of a NDR, vanguard party, liberation history and the practice of cadre deployment). Regardless, these failed institutions create a sense of a lack of political legitimacy and create fertile ground for populist rhetoric.
Many of our democratic institution are also still subject to fierce intellectual discourse and challenge (be it liberal, conservative, African nationalist, social-democratic etc) – a very result of the hot-house effect you refer to…
@Garg
Yes, and that is the lesson of central planning and the deeper flaw inherent in rational constructivism.
Robinson Acemoglu’s take on the “culture” argument. A lot depends on what you mean by “culture” and “institutions”.
http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2012/8/30/culture-and-development.html
@HD – I want to say I do not see broad ‘institutional failure’, but rather sporadic failures and sporadic successes – probably too many of the former and too few of the latter – as you you might expect in an infant constitutional democracy run by a divided and increasingly panicky liberation party that still faces no real competition to compel it to get itself together. When this lose some/win some ceases to be the case it will be obvious, though I concede by then it may be too late to reverse it.
However, I remain cautiously optimistic, if only because nothing is predetermined and events over which nobody has control can play their part for good as well as ill. Perhaps our present difficulties will build a useful sense of insecurity big success would not.
@Bert, how is it possible for anyone to discuss Freedom of Expression in any country, in a vacuum? It is not one dimentional but a multi dimensional topic simply because of the diversity and broadness of topic. To discuss “one aspect of American society” could never support the general conclusion you reach. Hence I raise the above not because it is real but simply because under Obama these are ongoing issues. Also, you cannot forget the history of the Klu Klux Klan. You also forget that even in Hollywood today, it is very difficult for so-called “American non-whites” to be cast in serious roles when these very roles are outsourced to non-Americans such as Hugh Jackman etc. this despite the fact that the American actors are selective in raising the above, because in exercising their freedom of expression, they fear they will be ignored for future work in this sector. The point we forget is that no society in the world today has achieved the idealistic perfection we all moot. All societies today have major challenges and fractures. We forget though that our democracy is so young and most of you spend your time criticising your country as opposed to making your country work. You cry wolf when we say you are disloyal & confrontational. Et al forgets that this is the only country you have and whilst you have a choice, you refuse to make our country the best it could be. Ironically not so long ago the above “experts” refused to allow democracy in this country.
Tofolux. Now the authority on the inner workings of Hollywood. Wonderful! Gracious. There truly is no end to your talents.
@DG, if you care to be more attentive please try and concentrate on the debate ie Freedom and the expression of that Freedom. In that context, is there any conceptualisation iro something you are all so ga-ga and irresponsible about?
Uhm… Tofolux: Hugh Jackman? Are you kidding? Look at the characters he’s played. Wolverine, Van Helsing. Why do you think he got the job?
I also cannot believe that you have simply dismissed so many “non-white” actors: James Earl Jones (the voice of Darth Vader!!); Wes Studi; Danny Trejo; Lawrence Fishburne; Hallie Berry; Morgan Freeman (God!); Avery Brooks (Captain Sisko); Antonio Banderas; Will Smith; Denzel Washington; Cuba Gooding Jr; Don Cheadle (War Machine!); Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury); Joe Morton; Michael Dorn; Tony Todd; Michael Clark Duncan; Whoopi Goldberg; Vin Diesel; Ving Rhames… need I go on?
Other non-American actors include: Djimon Hounsou (he’s black FYI) and our very own Charlize Theron and Alice Krige. Should they all have been denied the roles which they played so well?
@Paul
I can agree with that…
@Lennon, you must really stop reading papparazi news. Not only is it a dumb-down, it robs you of having an informed opinion. Can I give you a hint, firstly the above actors you have named are the very ones who have complained about their marginalisation but also try and do a simple sum that would calculate the amount of ”black actors” that are used vs the amount of foreign actors (not only the famous). It is grossly disingenous to try and silence the voices of those who are affected.
@ Tofolux: Insulting me undermines anything you have to say. It also shows you to be a nasty person. Are you a nasty person?
When you consider that the majority of Americans are white, it stands to reason that the majority of actors would be as well. Watch the SABC and you will see that more and more TV shows are dominated by black actors (which is to be expected in a country where the majority are black). It’s simple numbers.
Also, do you honestly believe that the abovementioned actors are struggling for income? The last time I checked, Eddie Murphy (for example) has more money than most people would know what to do with. If that is what being sidelined is, then where do I sign up?
PS: I don’t read paparazzi news. Actors are just people doing jobs and what they get up to after hours is of little interest to me (except for Vin Diesel starting his own game development company and being a serious D&D player).
PPS: Quite of few of the actors that I mentioned are not black at all. Do you even know who Danny Trejo is? I suspect that you don’t. I’d suggest that you read up on him – it’s an interesting story.
@ Tofolux: It’s ironic that you tell Bert (who has taught at university in your country for more than 40 years: “…most of you spend your time criticising your country as opposed to making your country work. You cry wolf when we say you are disloyal & confrontational…whilst you have a choice, you refuse to make our country the best it could be.” Aren’t you forgetting that a spirit of openness and mutual criticism are among the things that make for a “good country”? It is especially ironic if you ask yourself if ANC politicians are making the country “the best it could be”. I have before me the December 24 edition of TIME magazine, which contains an article on South Africa titled “The New Struggle”. It concerns the paralyzing corruption in ANC ranks, and details the intra-party assassinations in KZN – ANC members issuing “contracts” on others, the case in point here being Sbu Sibiya, who was known as a decent man trying to expose corruption. For this “he had to go,” according to someone interviewed for the article. “All that”, the article states, “makes the ANC’s descent over recent years into corruption and criminality all the more painful to the millions around the world who once held it in such esteem…With billions of dollars a year in government contracts to award, the ANC has changed from a party of hallowed revolution into a tool with which some in the party enrich themselves.” Does this make the country better? Some advertisement for SA, the ANC.
@Lennon, at some point you have to concede that my counter challenge as always comes from factual information. Unfortunately, space allows for concise one liners. I suggest you google the Actors Unions etc. But clearly this debate is about Expression and the right and Freedom of citizens to express themselves. To conclude, my point is that America is far from the ideal as mooted. It is not the society that is painted in movies, books, Obama-feel-good-stories, papparazi or the Hollywood version. This point is fundamentally proven by 9/11 etc. I think that America is not an equal society and that it has a long way to go in fact it can be contended that our society ie South Africa is far more progressive in understanding rights eg Womens Rights, Child rights, Community Rights, Gay rights, Ageism, the Disabled etc.
@ Tofolux: If you say so. You’ve still dismissed their accomplishments and sizeable incomes, the likes of which most Americans will never attain, especially now with the ever-shrinking middle class and increasing dependency on government handouts (47 million on food stamps when last I checked). If you take proportions into account, how many white Americans have been sidelined by Hollywood?
In the greater scheme of things I do not believe that the US is what the movies portray it to be – not during the white picket fence era of the 1950′s nor today for that matter. It has become a mind-numbing media circus cum surveillance state, not unlike the former Soviet Union with a Nobel Peace Prize winner president who can order the “execution” of any of its citizens without any proof of wrong-doing and continues to wage war on small, poorly armed countries – now through the use of drones (since having troops on the ground does not sit well with a lot of Obama’s supporters). Racial equality or the lack thereof isn’t even a factor in any more.
“Zero Dark Thirty: CIA hagiography, pernicious propaganda”
Katherine Bigelow, director of torture-apology film ZD30, is a real piece of work.
She has claimed that she had no “agenda” and did not “want to judge” (as if that were remotely possible in making this film, based on one-source information (Pentagon). The information has no independent testamant, no independent witnesses, indeed no footage, no body. Only the Pentagon press releases and their word for it.
On the other hand, completely contradicting that, Bigelow has very clearly stated that she set out to make pro-CIA propaganda:
“I want them [the audience] to be moved. I want them to know that this is the story of the intelligence community finding this man. These are incredibly brave individuals, dedicated individuals who sacrificed a lot to accomplish this mission…”
A must-read from New York University Journalism Professor Mark Crispin Miller…
Is Kathryn Bigelow the Leni Riefenstahl of the neo- liberals era?”
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2013/01/is-kathryn-bigelow-the-leni-riefenstahl-of-bobamas-war-on-terror/
Lawyer-journalist Glenn Greenwald goes further in an excellent article:
“Zero Dark Thirty: CIA hagiography, pernicious propaganda”
“As it turns out, the film as a political statement is worse than even its harshest early critics warned, ” says Greenwald in an article in the Guardian printed on Friday 14 December 2012.