Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, in an article entitled “The damage to Brand USA needs urgent repair”, submits that the damage to the American brand will be far more costly to the United States than the implosion of its investment banks.
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4937563.ece
“After 9/11 Americans proved distressingly ready to give up constitutional protections for the sake of security. Guantanamo Bay and the hooded prisoner at Abu Ghraib have replaced the Statue of Liberty as symbols of America in the eyes of many non-Americans.” (Francis Fukuyama)
In essence that people when confronted with difficulties will abandon even those things that they hold dear in the name of expedience. Freedoms that had been won through centuries of sacrifice and bloodshed relinquished in the blink of an eye. Long-term the impact of this type of approach will be keenly felt long after the basis giving rise therefore has disappeared.
In the case of Guantanamo Bay a precedent was set whereby arrest, “interrogation” and detention without anything approaching due process were accepted with barely a whimper; in the name of the “War on terror”. The precedent having been set, all that remains to be seen is what other “wars” will require this form of special treatment. In the “War on economic meltdown” who else would become eligible? Muslims, Chinese, Jews?
Fantastic, can’t be?
Twenty years ago if anyone had described “Rendition flights” and “Guantanamo Bay” as products of the United States they would have been laughed off the television screen as some sort of lunatic. The next step, which might well be necessary in the name of economic expedience, is not as far away as you might think.
The people of the United States should have refused to accept this as the price for their safety. The cost to their freedom far outweighs the very limited benefit that this barbaric behavior has brought. This was abandoning responsibility in the name of expedience.
Some things are worth fighting for.
As most people are aware the Springbok emblem for the South African rugby team has once again became the centre of furious debate. An emblem which formed part of South Africa’s heritage long before the arrival and departure of apartheid. A symbol of the one sport that has achieved success and recognition of South African excellence the world over.
A sport that Madiba used to bridge the gap between races and which proudly denounces racism wherever it arises. Where both World Cup winning captains sought approval from all South Africans. Where John Smit lambasted those who would waive old South African flags in his face.
A sport that has tackled grassroots transformation more than the overwhelming majority of other sports.
A sport where any youngster with aspirations to achieve at the highest level dreams of wearing that symbol, not a King Protea or anything else.
Accordingly it is racism and prejudice which has to be taken out of the people not the emblem off the shirt.
Naas Botha has suggested that if this is going to become an ongoing bone of contention then let’s get shot of the Springbok now rather than later. In his opinion the issue of representing your country being more important than the emblem or the colour of your jersey. Don’t mistake what Naas has said with his being disapproving of the emblem; he is in favour of the Springbok but tired of the never ending arguments surrounding its continued existence.
If we adopt that line we will in essence be abandoning everything of value, every time something worth preserving comes under constant attack; explain away its importance in terms of not being worth the constant bickering or in terms of there being other more important factors like representing your country.
If that be so you could abandon just about anything.
Soccer in the meanwhile is embarrassing us in terms of performance, transformation, selling the television rights outside the national broadcaster, paying outrageous sums to owners, managers and so on and so nauseas. Our Olympic team spent an unmitigated fortune in retrieving one silver medal from the Beijing Games.
If I was associated with any of the sports concerned I would be in the witness protection programme answering to the name of Kevin Faust. Yet for some reason we have hardly heard a word said in anger regarding those real problem areas.
Indeed the racist connotation of the Springbok is generally raised by one of South Africa’s biggest racists, Mr Komphela, of the parliamentary oversight committee. The man who comes up with pearls of wisdom regarding whites and Indians. His presence or its continuation must surely be an oversight on someone’s part all on its lonesome. Obviously they somehow keep forgetting he is there.
The issue is not the emblem nor the players nor even the policies of South African Rugby; it’s the same old mentality of those refusing to accept the changes to our country. While enormous changes have been made to street names, hospitals and the like without any fuss, the Springbok has great emotional value to many South Africans. It should not be sacrificed for those who cannot get past their own prejudices because we’re tired of arguing about it.
Then we get geniuses like Luke Watson bleeding all over us about how people sacrificed so much so that he could live in a changed society. Like the child in the car crying “I’m thirsty mommy” for an hour until you get to a garage. As soon as he’s had a drink the next hour involves “Boy was I thirsty”. Maybe he’ll wake up someday and live in the new South Africa rather than carrying on like some feeble echo from a past he never manned for any significant portion of his life.
The ANC has recognised the significance and value of this emblem to many of our people across the colour lines.
Do not abandon it simply because people are making a noise and it seems to be never- ending. Rather draw attention to areas that need attention and if Komphela wishes to carry on with the emblem issue while our Soccer and Olympic teams are a disgrace then obviously either the Springbok or Mr Komphela has to go.
Guess which one?
Naas is probably just fed-up to the back teeth with the annual beat-up over the springbok. Every time it comes up, it’s not the Bok which is being pilloried: it’s white South Africans as a whole. It’s everything and anything they hold dear and the subtext is that this must be taken away from them so that blacks can show everyone who is boss. The majority us their numbers to bully the minority and they call it “democratic” rather than “bullying”.
Michael, you make matzo pudding of your indignation. Why can’t you accept the reality that SA rugby is by its very nature a racist cancer in our society that cannot be rehabilitated no matter what emblem it chooses. The sport itself needs to be excised from our society.
I love the springbok but can we compomise and be impalas or gemsbokke rather than a flower?
Hey Trapido, try and write one piece without America bashing. The top half of your piece is crappola totalla and the second half is good. You get three stars.
Why not keep the springbok – but use an African name? Simple!
Isn’t it amazing how some people (Mark B) defend the indefensible? Mentioning how America has thrown away some of its biggest, major, irreplaceable assets for nothing (and on false, drummed up fears) for a result that enriched a few and impoverished and killed thousands gets him rushing to the defence of the world’s only superpower!!
Mark B you are living proof of why democracy is a terrible system (pity there’s no better system available). Remind yourself that you ARE ALLOWED to stop and think for yourself. Why would the strongest nation in the world need to violently attack and savagely abuse some of the very poorest nations on earth? Surely logic tells you there are diplomatic, legal, financial and other more civilised ways of getting little guys to listen to big guys?
As for the Springbokkie, I can’t get too emotionally bothered by it. I was passionate about before it became corporate property in a professional league where players are used as TV pawns. Now: Ho Hum.
All I can say is IF the mismanagement of rugby administrators went unpunished it would be a travesty of justice. They deserve every setback and controversy that comes their way.
Hear hear Traps. There is only the bokke. Who wants to hear “Hier kom die blomme, hier kom die blomme, ra da da da da…?” The bokke should be left alone.
The Springbok is more than an emblem. It’s a symbol of excellence unparalleled in the annals of South African sport. For me, two teams, the Springboks and the All Blacks, togged out in their traditional kit, forever epitomise rugby.
All Black Graham Thorne actually moved to South Africa with the express purpose of winning a Springbok shirt. He came desperately close but failed in the end, and I imagine looking back it was probably one of the big disappointments in his life. No Springbok or All Black ever achieved the honour of wearing the other team’s shirt on a rugby field.
I wonder, would Graham Thorne have made the same effort to win a shirt with a flower instead of a Springbok on it?
I’m not trying to wax lyrical here, but it seems appropriate to say that to remove the Springbok emblem from South Africa’s national rugby shirt would be symbolic of removing the biblical Sampson’s hair.
Maybe that is what Mr Komphela would like to do!
Marvin: You weren’t trying to wax lyrical . . .
But you couldn’t help it.
Remember all: It FEELS LIKE you’re playing for (or supporting) your country when you put on the springbokkie, but if you read a player’s contract and the contracts SA Rugby have signed with Murdoch’s TV, etc. you’ll realise who you REALLY are playing for or supporting.
And maybe then we can all support with less fervour and more thought for the broader, more human issues?
Well I predict that even if Luke Watson is pressurised into the Boks by the administrators, he won’t last long. The Lone Ranger will be playing alone without team protection. He will be about as safe as a pedeophile in a prison.
Traps
A queation of law -Khompela says SAFU “owns” the Springbok emblem i.e the government does, not “the people”, but who is the government the government for?
And can one even legally “own” copyright to an animal or a plant?
And if the “government” owns it only to suppress it – do the people have the right to claim it back from “the government”?
What if every T-Shirt manufacturer prints Springboks on T-shirts, and rugby supporters wear them to the games? Can “the government” legally stop “the people” from wearing an animal’s picture? After all, “the government” did not make the animal?
Advise please!
Don’t dispear people,the ANC is good in crushing
anything that does not add value to the ANC-brand
of high morality and honesty,liked it crushed
poor old Andrew Feinstein crusade for the truth
and only the truth.
Shame this is what happened to him:
‘The situation was out of contol.I was being
bullied into accepting theleadership’s line,and if I didn’t it would be clear that I was a traitor
with an agenda of my own.I felt tears well up.
Iexcused myself and fled the meeting room as I began to cry.Not quite the hardnosed politician.
I made for the nearest bathroom,closed the
cubicle door and sat on the toilet holding my
head,trying to stop the tears and to think clearly’.
And know you all have to excuse me I feel the
tears swelling up in my eyes and I am think
I am going to cry singing ‘Baai,Baai bokkie’
and close the toelet door behind me.Will my
wife take pity on me and bring me my slippers
and a cup of boeretroos or will she tell me
to shut up because I am false and of tune?
Only time will tell ‘Baai,Baai bokkie’.