“Over the past 25 years, there have been a number of coconuts, non-whites and whites who have, overtly or covertly, accused authentic blacks of being racists,” says Memela in his recent “Dear coconuts, there are no black racists blog”. He does not define what an “authentic” black is. An immediate problem with the word authentic, as used by Memela, is that however you are born, the word authentic does not apply. You are simply born a human being and that cannot be done authentically or inauthentically. The phenomenon simply occurs. So we conclude Memela is talking about some kind of black identity.
Intellectual Memela (he modestly confesses to being one on his profile) then goes on to say these (undefined) blacks are accused of being racists and that this is “uncalled for” and “untrue”. But, unfortunately, there are people of every colour, creed and persuasion who do discriminate. Memela tends to used passive sentences when making accusations or wild claims (authentic blacks are incapable of being racist), that is to say, he shows no agency. Who, I cry, says that so-called “authentic blacks” are racist? For starters readers do not know what he means by authentic blacks as it is not defined. People cannot accuse an unknown entity of people when they dunno who them critters are.
Intellectual Memela then talks about black identity without making clear the specific context and which identity among the many black groups that can be found globally. He refers to Biko. But that great, tragic hero was defining blackness when all blacks (and people of other colour than white) were going through a cruel, crushing oppression second only to Nazism. Hence Biko’s definition of blackness inevitably was contingent on the emancipation of “the people” and a need for them “to rally together”… against “their oppression”. For example, Biko — extremely bravely, given his context, vastly unlike intellectual Memela’s context — wrote:“The blacks are tired of standing at the touchlines to witness a game that they should be playing. They want to do things for themselves and all by themselves.““Black Consciousness is an attitude of the mind and a way of life, the most positive call to emanate from the black world for a long time. Its essence is the realisation by the black man of the need to rally together with his brothers around the cause of their oppression — the blackness of their skin — and to operate as a group to rid themselves of the shackles that bind them to perpetual servitude.“
A definition of “blacks” in today’s SA society (never mind the various definitions of blacks in other countries) is extremely different to Biko’s era. It is also obviously complex. Does the poor Zimbabwean refugee in SA who fears for his life every day, and works for sixpence, have the same identity and “prestige” as intellectual Memela? I dislike asking rhetorical questions. But the answer is obviously a loud, thundering no, and thus, we have barely started reading intellectual Memela’s column and he has already done a grave disservice to “blacks” in general (the term blacks by now the literate reader will agree is too vague, hence the inverted commas) to humankind, and to humanitarianism.
Intellectual Memela says “when blacks are self-aware, love and embrace blackness in their own terms, it does not mean that blacks are anti-white” (emphasis mine). The opening phrase is an adverb of time. So when does this self-awareness occur? It also suggests that some (again an unidentified quantity) blacks have not reached this marvellous level. Are those blacks who have not reached this “Maslovian” level inauthentic? Are they perhaps half-authentic, like a half-baked loaf of bread? Surely the (again, literate, non-abecedarian) reader can see this is clearly all, in the figurative sense of the word, half-baked thinking, if not quarter-baked and indigestible. And yet Thought Leader allows this kind of writing to be published, a phenomenon I wish to come to later, including the title, Thought Leader.
Shortly after the “Maslovian” bit, intellectual Memela comes to the following conclusion. The sentence has the most delicious irony: “It [the lie of authentic blacks being incapable of racism] could do great damage to the integrity of blackness”. As I have already shown, the damage has already been done by intellectual Memela.
We then have this muddled bit from our scholar who avows a belief in freedom of expression: “It is always disheartening and painful to witness or observe fellow South Africans who, in their over-zealousness to be non-racist, now want to be colour-blind, too.” Why does Memela find it disheartening and painful, “to be colour-blind”, a quest enshrined by all humanitarians? In other words, to respect and uplift all, especially the oppressed?
Frankly, I cannot think of a better world than one that is entirely non-racist and colour-blind. I live in Shanghai, a city that shows all kinds of painful discrimination, discussed in a number of my posts. Perhaps intellectual Memela means by, “now wants to be colour-blind”, that various racial groups or displaced people (such as the San or those poor, displaced Zimbabweans) in South Africa should have their group identities respected and protected. In other words, society should not be blind to them. But our luminary does not make this clear. Onward we waffle.
As our scholarly intellectual meanders along in his column, let me guide you through some choice passages, with my comments in italics in brackets: “Ironically, it is those who claim to be non-racists (who are “those”?) who play the race card against blacks” (Who exactly? Names, please. Give specific incidents). This they tend to do by making subtle but poor attempts to call and condemn blacks as racist (I would have thought anyone calling someone else a racist is far from subtle. And again, please substantiate your fantastic claims with specific examples). They (Who?) insist that blacks are obsessed with racism, not wanting to move with the times. (This final, irresponsible statement serves only to create further rifts, or tensions between race groups.
There is now a Fuhrer, “Mein Kampf” quality to this writing, potentially riling up one group against another.)“But self-aware and self-loving blacks are not necessarily racist. In fact, blacks are not racist.” This statement would have been lovely (though far from original) if it had read: “self-aware and self-loving people… are not racist”. By stating the irresponsible, generalising untruth, “blacks are not racist” our scholar dichotomises and plays “race” against “race”.“If they wanted to make an issue of racism, blacks who are accused of racism would demand an apology” (and yet many groups such as the ANCYL and senior leaders such as Chuene and Winnie Mandela demanded an apology from the IAFF for being racist towards Semenya on the gender issue and they were proven so, so wrong. Chuene was lying all the time, using racism to try and cover his sorry arse. Note, Mr Memela, how I use a specific example, unlike you).
The coconut. The rest of this thoughtful, sensitive column of intellectual Memela’s is mostly about “the coconut”. He defines coconuts as blacks who aspire to be whites (without giving explicit examples to substantiate his scholarly claim). This must surely be infuriating to aspiring young black men such as fellow blogger The Sumo, who sees himself as “the ultimate transitional South African. Born and raised in a KwaZulu-Natal township near Durban, he was part of the first group of black initiates into the ‘multiracial’ education system. He was (and is) always in contrast to the norm, black in ‘white’ schools, a blazer-wearing coconut in the township streets … ”. I strongly doubt The Sumo wishes to be white or to have a “white” identity (whatever that means). If The Sumo wishes to have an identity where people of all colours have the same identity, rather than the dichotomy black/white, so what? I see in The Sumo’s blogs the following. He defines himself (often humorously to keep things in perspective) as a person first in the context of transitional SA, explores his identity in the changing terrain of Joburg second, and looks at himself as a black person as a close third. He does not say he is the ultimate transitional black, but the ultimate transitional South African, thus avoiding dichotomy or othering people of different “races”. This is so unlike Sandile Memela.
The Sumo jokingly refers to himself as a coconut in his profile. I think his definition is far from Memela’s, and is more a spoof on being “black” in so-called, previously “white” schools and probably also refers to his body shape, which he loves referring to in a hilarious manner.
However, to state the obvious, the term coconut is derogatory, at least the way intellectual Memela uses it. “There are many coconuts or non-whites — that is, blacks who aspire to be whites — who confuse skin colour with blackness. These coconuts always complain that they are being made to carry the burden of ‘blackness’.” This is the most interesting conundrum: “who confuse skin colour with blackness”. I realise, in his own studious, thoughtful manner, our intellectual is trying to make a case for a specific black identity which he never defines. But the very attempt to do so subverts the fact he says “authentic blacks” (whatever/whoever the hell they are) cannot be racist. A non-racist is one who does not discriminate. So “authentic blacks” (one readily assumes Memela is one), would not accuse other people of being “different” or “coconuts” as they are non-racist and do not discriminate. Contradiction after contradiction.
Scholar Memela does serious violence to the legacy of Biko with “To paraphrase Biko: ‘Coconut is non-white. And black is black’.” He has not paraphrased. He has distorted what Biko said and also undermined the spirit of the cause Biko rightly fought for: freedom for the oppressed, equality and no discrimination.
And yet this article finds its way onto Thought Leader. Some commentators were understandably so disgusted they do not wish to come back to Thought Leader. Articles like these tarnish the image Thought Leader wants to have — judging by the name of the blog platform’s title. In other words Thought Leader surely wishes to host writers who can think. The title is a bit of a misnomer, as it sounds like a “think tank” of leading thinkers who get together to analyse and provide solutions for a country’s problems or the world’s. I have thought for a long time it should be changed to Opinion Leader.
But in closing, let us look at Memela as he muddles up to the finishing line: “Let us leave the blacks to be true to themselves by creating a new human race.”
What does this mean? A new Aryan ubermensch? Blacks will define the future of humankind and not — arguably — the Chinese? What about the poor, disloyal “coconut” blacks who are not “true to themselves”? In the hegemonic order of the “new human race” will the coconuts et al be among the “prawns”, referring to that movie District 9?
I wait with bated breath for some coherent answers. Not.
Don’t you have your own original ideas to write about that than attack another writer? Did it no suffice to respond on the original blog? I understand that there are those like you that think that this website is wrong for allowing such articles. Me thinks not freedom of expression is not limited to those issues that you like but even to those that you don’t.
Mr. Memela is actually correct in his assertions. Why should we allow you and your ilk to dictate to us what to write about and what to think? I salute him for his bravery. The unfortunate think is that those that write on blogs mostly don’t represent the majority. Is it not strange that COPE was tipped to cause an upset by the media and failed dismally? Does that not show the kind of bias analysis that we are subjected to. Most pundits get the situations wrong because they don’t understand the underlying cause.
Catch a wakw up and write somethin new, you are flocking a dead horse on this one.
I cannot believe you went through the trouble of answering that crap. Good job anyway.
It would have been nice if this response was written by a “Coconut”. Why do you feel you need to response on their behalf? I referred to myself an authentic black person and I said that a “Coconut” is more a state of mind more than anything else.
Like I said, let them “Coconuts” respond for themselves.
What you are trying to say is that this whole coconut argument is bloodie unadultareted nonsense.
We must stop trying to blunt all blacks to think in a particular way in the name of black consciousnes.
Your blog makes Sandile to be like a grumpy bc activist trying to hog the headlines in the name of twisted analysis. Yes I agree it belongs in the gitter that sort of reasoning.
But you seem suprised – I am not. Tolerance has left the room and only prejudice of the worst sort seems to guide Mamela’s rantings half the time….
Just watch his response to your well thought out piece….
I am not holding my breath for anything worth writing home about….
Yes lets repeats some home truths:
* Cocunut concept is rubish basically.
* Blacks dont think the same – they will never think the same – they should not think the same
* There is no such thing as black thinking as suggested by Memela. This is non sense. Blacks and whites can easily find themselves in the same side of the argument.
* It is a load of senselessness to argue that black people who agree with whites ‘aspire to be white’. This belongs to the dustbin of the old south africa.
What we need is to build a new countryt and use the race consciouness to determine how the disparities of the past can be addressed not to further regiment poor conception of what it is to be black or white.
JJ
Noko, you are missing the point. Rod Mackenzie is pointing out that the blog in question was extremely poorly written and so full of contradictions that it is difficult to know what the assertions were, meaning that the reader can’t even make an opinion such as “Mr Memela is actually correct in his assertions”. But then you speak of “flocking a dead horse” so you will probably miss the point of this reply as well…
Noko, I think this article went way over your head! You prove your ignorance by bringing COPE into it. Are they the “not authentic” blacks? If you can’t substantiate your arguments in an unbiased way, you should rather not reply and look the fool you are. I understand why you feel the urge to protect poor Malema. Same, same!!!!!
Hi, Rod, You have paid Sandile a great compliment by taking the time to analyse his appalling badly written and un-reasoned diatribe. I’m afraid I gave up on him some time ago after suggesting that he get a copy of Strunk and White and a dictionary–without the colour illustrations.
The pivotal statements in his otherwise opaque ouevre is “skin colour does not make you black…” !!!!!!!!
Say what? That bald statement could not go unanswered so I posted the following satirical retort.
“I am so relieved to learn that I am now not non-black. In fact, I am a ‘virtual black’ thanks to your impeccable reasoning!
No longer does my Celtic colouring stand in the way of my being considered black. As a virtual black I am entitled to all the privileges that now attend that designation. The ANC must love me, protect me, defend me (no mater how corrupt I want to be),and will twist logic into pretzels in order to justify any disasters I may leave in my wake.
Sandile, you are a master of the unconscious non-sequitor, the causus absurdus, the hilarious malapropism, and fractured tautology–all things that drive whites and coconuts to apoplectic despair in their efforts to follow you! Continued below.
Bravo, I say. Who needs clarity, accuracy, logic, or sentences that actually parse? Not non-blacks who are also non-white and non not-white or non- coconut wannabe-whites. If you see what I mean. Right, bro’?
Continued from above:
Those of us who aspire to ‘authentic’ blackness–no matter what colour our skins is– we know we are not the equals of anyone in the world who is not non-black; we are their betters. We are not bound by the law or the constitution; we ARE both. Right, Sandile?
‘Authentic blacks’ of all colours re-define reality– one coconut meringue at a time.
If anyone followed the absurdities of that mock-reasoning, welcome to Sandile’s world!
Rod, I’m actually amazed that you took the time to reply to Mr. Memela’s crass blather. His post itself was an excellent example of black racism and intolerance.
Good job, nonetheless.
Though you raise some valid points in your writting Rod, I’m afraid your efforts and time are as wasted as the time and energy we afford to Julius Malema.
I’d much rather the we directed our efforts to the people who not only inspire us to be better humanbeing but actually help make our country and world a better place. On that note, allow me to say….HAPPY BIRTHDAY Bishop Desmond Tutu!!!!
Biko was a great thinker/leader and his authentic words that you highlight should be blazened everywhere for all, Black/white/pink/brown etc to read and study and carry out. The actual words not edited rubbish that plagiarises and attempts to steer politically his wonderful, uplifting thoughts and ideas.
Brent
Well done Rod. I wonder though, if there are people out there who would read Malema’s blog and wholeheartedly agree at least with his gist (I agree it is impossible to agree with what he does not actually say) should we not somehow try to understand where they are coming from? Not because they are right or wrong, but because they are coming from such an “opposite” or other point of view that there is no point arguing as you have will leave them defensive.
That is why I think Thoughtleader is useful, it brings to attention patterns of opinion that might blow our minds but that are there and even prevalent in society. I think we should use Thoughtleader to try and figure out where people are coming from and attempt at least to converse instead of attack. Kind of an exercise in mediation and arbitration.
But then again in this case, I feel it may be a lost cause!
All i can read here is more whines, groans, and boring stuff from a dreary blogger who’s seeking publicity by twisting ‘n turning somebody’ ideas/post (in this case, Sandile’s) so as to thrill his dull blog.
Siestog!
I really got lost in this thing.
I have never felt guilty of being white. I do my best to work with and assist my fellow countrymen.
At the age of 73 with experience in EU, US and Africa I feel that I am well above this black/white stuff.
Do WE want a country to succeed? or do WE want a country to go under?????
The WORLD is not very forgiving to those who do not make it.
I think by replying to Mamela’s drivel you give his ridiculous, absurd views oxygen to breath!
He’s completely discredited himself(and ThoughLeader). The most worrying thing is that he seems to be what passes for an ‘intellectual’ where he’s from.
So much for intelligent debate.
Well said Po on October 7th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
@Onkgopotse JJ Tabane – Exactly! Race isn’t even a scientifically valid concept – its all just varying degrees of melanin. Distinguishing between people on the basis of “race” isn’t any different between distinguishing between people on the size of their noses or the amount of hair on their heads. Its a rubbish concept that also belongs to the dustbin of the old South Africa.
Wake up and smell the science, people.
I commend you for providing a rebutle to Memela’s racist and redundant blog. Your response reveals a refusal to be apathetic & accpet what Memela stated. As a nation we are too apathetic because we do not want to offend people, we would rather not rock the very precarious (and to some degree false because it is not questioned enough) peace that we have. Therefore it is not a waste of time responding, if he chooses to place himself in a public position spouting dribble then you have every right, and as a ‘thoughtleader’ (which I also feel is an inadequate description) you have a responsibility to respond.
Melela’s entire article can be used in a class for logical fallacies.
There is the “No true Scotsman” argument. It is riddled with straw men. Then he adds a slippery slope or two for seasoning along with a false dichotomy for good measure.
Lovely.
Declaring the apartheid system as “being second only to Nazism” IS A BIT HARSH, I would dare to say. Maybe Rod’s trying to appease a particular audience. Don’t really believe that, do you, bro?
I’m with Benzol. United you succeed, divided, the other countries laughing at your wasted energy will grow and prosper.
Noko, you missed the point completely, please reread, although it is rather long winded and a bit complicated. And the term is ‘flogging’, as in, ‘I dreamt I was flogging Juju last night as he is an utter racist and has no place in the new SA’
SIGH….! Siphiwo, you have really hurt Rod’s feelings, you are a bad boy!
Benzol – you are younger but in my generation DO you recall the discussions during our teen years about whether a person is “tarred with Cain’s brush.” I do not know how the idiom was created but understood its meaning. Certain surnames had ‘very dark skinned” people and some had hair that was crinkly; etc; etc.
So what is new old chap ? Just us two old fogeys refusing to be “seen and not heard” huh ?
ROD
de ja vu the small man, I AM AN AFRICAN !
I asked Sandile whether, Dr in Economics, he has knowledge of HUMAN DYNAMICS. No response.
I am a MONGREL from ancestors who caused me to be alien in new SA.
I have learnt that only recent immigrants from Europe are pure white.
i.e. Interbreeding of race goes back centuries with mixed blood from Khoisan, Hottentot and Xhosa.
Now what are we to be called ? I am no longer a proud Saffie !
Ja, I agree with Mark – its way too harsh. Apartheid, of course, was a despicable and backwards system, but the world has seen much, much worse. The Belgian atrocities in the Congo, where King Leopold massacred millions of Congolese, jumps to mind. See for example http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/35/181.html
Hi Rod and the rest of the readers:
Please read below and your concerns have been addressed by Sandile Mamela in his latest Blog – so much for meaning (Coconut (black term) – relatively a new word and not recognised in the concise English dictionary). More terms to follow – though not currently available in text; namely Kasi slang/jargon.
White people who live in this country and Shanghai will not necessarily understand what blacks mean when they talk about coconuts.
Interestingly, the blacks and the coconuts will both understand. After all, the notion of coconuts is a black thing. Perhaps we should not expect anyone white, especially in Shanghai, to understand what we are talking about.
The fact that the majority of your readers and yourself noted the article/blog as racist stems from the fact that you think about racism far too much and are still racist yourself.
Be a tad bit creative and compose an idea i.e. stop belittle what you don’t understand.
The fact that you don’t understand the concept “coconut” and “authentic black” should simply tell and educated columnist like you that you are not fit to respond to the column. rather take advise from Tlanch Tau and keep your nose out of it – you couldn’t grasp!
Take a hint!!!
Johan Swart-
Please dont argue that point. I was not in Belgium or Congo and I felt, no correction, still feel apartheid.
you were comfortable(if you were around) and currently reaping the rewards your ancestors left for you.
You cant compare.
Take a hint too!
Onkgopotse JJ Tabane, you hit the nail slap bang on the head! I have always thought that it is an awful insult to my fellow citizens to say they ‘aspire to be white’. Why, in God’s name? Why would you want to do that? Why not aspire to be the best you can be? Why can’t we, as South Africans, become the change in the world we’d like to see, as Gandhi put it?
‘Flocking a dead horse’ sounds gorgeously ‘de Sade’ and decadent. May the flock be with you, Noko.
In 1973 Le Duc Tho refused to share the Nobel peace prize with Henry Kissinger. Such considerations did not deter Nelson Mandela, who 20 years later shared it with FW de Klerk (Mandela did bitch about it afterwards but he did, in the end, cash the cheque). Even more significantly, South Africa’s first post-apartheid government was a coalition including the ANC and the Nats (and the IFP, too, in case we need to be reminded). So, bad as it was, apartheid could not have been “second only to Nazism.” Geez, dude, how narrow is YOUR world view? Of course, Rod is merely using a bit of politically correct hyperbole (along with his paean to The Sumo) to pre-empt any accusations that, heavens forfend, he is a racist. It’s a blot, an ugly zit, on the face of an otherwise fine polemic. If an intellectual (and I use the term cautiously) as voluble as McKenzie has to resort to such subterfuges, why bother debating issues of race in public forums at all? It’s an exercise that can never be done free of the fear of recrimination. Even in China, china.
To all – the general feeling among the commentators (except, inevitably for the semi-literate such as Noko and Siphiwo , who ,one notes, do not actually engage with anything I specifically say because they cannot)was that Melema’s blog was yet again incoherent and irresponsible. Many felt I should not have bothered replying and that it was even a compliment that I bothered to do so. Agreed, those thoughts went through my mind too.But I am fed up with intellectual Melema’s partisan blatherings and the way his ilk tarnishes the reputation of this blg site. So, Mr Melema, every time you write a piece like this I going to write a response to it. Every time. Be warned.
And I deliberately did not write this as a comment under Melema’s blog as that just gets buried and largely unnoticed.
And it may sound a bit sensationalist but I stand by my comparison of Apartheid being second only to Nazism. On a pure evil scale I would give Nazism 100% evil and Apartheid 70%. Comparing apartheid to other, atrocities that were worse strikes me as a sick form of denial. hey our system only killed off a few thousand people and we only tortured x amount and left x amount homeless or forcefully removed y amount. Thus: we were not so bad. Do NOT get into that trap of thinking.
Mothokoa
It is a fallacy that just black people are capable of understanding certain ideas. In fact, it does border on racism. It the reverse were stated, that only whites could truly understand socialism, or utilitarianism, because they were originally “white men ideas” it would be racist.
Ideas, while they may originate in the mind of a person of a particular race, they are not the property of that person or that race. The idea becomes part of the public domain.
The problem is not that we do not understand what the piece is trying to articulate – it is that we do. We find it to be wrongheaded at best and racist and offensive at worst. Your supposition that white people just don’t understand is as patronizing as when racist whites make claims about blacks inability do understand certain ideas.
Race might make you more sympathetic to a view, or it may help you to understand it, but nothing more. Ideas are by their very nature open to understanding by all.
Hey, Rod,
I hope that my comment above did not strike you as a rebuke. Far from it. I share your desire to encourage reasoned and articulate debate on these pages-which is why I am a faithful reader of your entries!
When Mamela first showed up here, I tried to follow his logic. From to time he showed some promise but overall his posts are ill-considered, ‘victimised’ in tone, inchoate, and he interprets any criticism of either the content or the form of his writing as ‘racist’, relying on the same weapon of first resort used by Julius Malema, Hlophe, Chuene, Ngobeni, and a seemingly endless line of self-serving toadies whose intellectual impoverishment results in accusation rather than debate.
You’ve taken on a Herculean task in deciding to answer Mamela’s blogs. Deciphering his ramblings would try the patience of Champollion.
Bonne chance, mon ami!
@Rose
Well said. Agreed! Having tried to correct Sandile’s usage and analyse his logic in many of this previous blogs, I had given up and stopped reading him. (It was getting bad for my karma). But you are right, we need to confront absurdity and destructiveness on the part of those with a public platform. (Better that than risk my next lifetime!)
@JJ Tabane
Right on the money. I follow your blogs with interest.
@Mothokoa – You are correct – I have been born “privileged” due to this country’s past. But this is not the point here. I am backing Mark in his remark that calling apartheid second only to Nazism is a bit farfetched.
Please understand: I by no means am trying to “discredit” the harm apartheid has inflicted on to the majority of South Africans. If you read my previous comment again, you will see that I called the system “despicable and backwards”.
By saying that the Congolese were even worse of than many South Africans (in comparision to the harms Nazism inflicted on the Jews) during apartheid is, however, the mere stating of a fact.
I repeat:
1. Apartheid was despicable.
2. Belgian reign of terror was even more despicable.
You are very welcome to refute the above mentioned points.
Mothookoa _ I was busy preparing a reply to Coconut Memela’s “Rainbow” reply before your comment appeared. Boring as it is (Coconut Memela’s ramblings), I am composing a reply.
Siobhan, thanks. I am fed up with the coconut.
Hi Mothokoa – you are wrong to say Coconut Memela “addresses” my “concerns” is his new blog about no black in the rainbow. He does not engage with (ie address) anything I say, and to be frank, I have no concerns (worries, anxiety etc.). I think he is a complete fool and every time he writes ANYTHING I am proven correct.
He is the Julius Mamela of Thought Leader. Without the humour.
Rod
Sorry to say this : you’re really losing it. Somebody, anybody, help please!
Thank you Rod, for your analysis of Sandile Memela’s ridiculous ‘argument’, I really am glad you took the time to do this, seeing as Sandile didn’t even bother to respond to any of the comments posted on his pitiful blog. Of course Sandile now feels that your response comes from impure motives, and not merely logic seeking out and destroying illogic. Sandile, please, please (and you too Siphiwo), come up with logical arguments, even if they are contraversial. I’ll at least read your posts then.
Thank you so much for this article Rod. The article by Sandile Memela was divisive and it’s unfortunate that it found its way to Thought leader.
Keeep up the good stuff!
We are the winners(Africans) and we will tell our story to all those willing to listen. You have people trying to question our ‘lived’ experience. It, the African experience, with all its short-comings,is real and it’s about time white folks accepted it. Criticize it, or condemn it, but remember, it’s still valid, and it’s still African. Most local whites in South Africa do not know us, in fact, it’s people from overseas who come live with us and try and listen to us. How do you you expect the ‘master’ to listen to the ‘slaves’? No shocker here. As for Mr. “Analyst”, small ‘d’ propagator, I think you are bankrupt of ideas and are a bore. If you cannot comprehend our ‘being’ African in South Africa, what is it you are going to know about us. At this juncture, Mr. analytic(aka Mr. Rod Mackenzie), why don’t you come down to us here in Soweto so we can pow-wow. To get responses on your blog, you talk about us as if you know us. You do not! You need to come and live with us in our mekhukhu and maybe we can say “Yi ngamla ekuyi-Skhokho. Are you? NOT!! You are just an ignorant blogger who really feels that he can break down people’s analysis, in clinical apartheid fashion, demeaning, down-looking, prejudiced and arrogant racist white way of talking about us. Why don’t you come down here, he?