I had such great big dreams about how I would contribute positively to voter education by posting links to party websites and trawling through manifestoes so that we could really debate the issues here on my humble little blog.
But then reality intervened, and suddenly there's less than a month to go until the national elections, and I haven't read manifestoes (manifestos? Lordy, my spelling is poor). That's a terrible thing to admit, but it's the truth. I haven't found/made the time. And it's one of the things that is contributing to my terrible indecision regarding who will get my cross - or crosses, since one votes provincially and nationally - on election day.
Who do I vote for? There isn't a single party in South Africa that stands firmly for the things I believe in. Do I spoil my ballot? Or is that a flagrant waste of my right to vote? Do I vote for the same party nationally or provincially, or do I split my vote in two?
I'd love to get a debate going with some of the people who I know read Petrichor regularly, I'm keen to see what people think of, particularly, the issues of ballot spoiling and split votes (nationally/provincially). Electioneering is welcome, of course - this blog is not a no-go area. ;)
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
"You're over the hill at 27"
Firstly - I'm sorry about my prolonged absence from this blogosphere. One day I tried to log onto Blogger and was told by my computer that I couldn't access the site because it was pornographic in nature! I tried again and again over the course of a few days, and always got the same message. At first I wondered if Laura, evil woman that she is, had been posting nasty things on my blog (*grin* at Laura), but I then remembered that my IT division at work is a bit weird and blamed them instead. Anyway, long story short - today I typed "www.blogger.com" and was allowed onto the site.
So I'm back, from outer space, and I'm ready to blog.
The post title refers to a newspaper poster I have sitting on my desk; I nicked it from one of the elevators here at work because I just couldn't resist it (I'm 27, in case you didn't get that). It's linked to a story in today's Cape Argus, which states that "Old age begins at 27 as mental powers start to decline, according to scientists.
"Researchers have found that people's mental abilities peak at 22, before beginning to deteriorate just five years later."
Finally, a scientific rationale for how old I feel!
Compounding my doddery feelings on this lovely Cape Town Monday, I've just received an e-mail about my Matric reunion. It's scheduled for later in the year, and it's got several thoughts swirling through my addled brain.
1. The reunion has to be held in September to coincide with the Jewish new year (I attended a Jewish day school), or in December - because almost all of my classmates have left South Africa and only come home for major religious holidays or the year-end vacation.
That's pretty scary. A quick mental trawl of Facebook (or, after its recent reincarnation as an Afrikaans website, GesigBoek) reveals that most people I went to school with have settled in the US, UK, Australia or Israel. And most are not coming back, certainly not permanently.
2. The credit crunch plays a role in planning our reunion. The woman who is organising it, a former classmate, says that anyone with "trust funds" should let her know (she's only half-kidding, I promise), because there's "no budget" for an event of this nature.
How hard can it be? We need a venue, a nice kosher caterer, and a cash bar. Ta-da!
3. Oh my G-d, it's my 10-year reunion!
I was one of those kids who enjoyed school. I learned a lot, I had a lot of fun, and although there was angst about who liked me and who was cool and who wasn't cool and all that teenage stuff, I was generally quite a relaxed and happy teenager. When I matriculated, I was happy to be out of there, but only because I wanted to start the next phase of my journey. I'm looking forward to my reunion, to seeing how people have changed (and many won't have changed at all), to finding out who has been doing what and where and all of those things.
I've been resisting the urge to reply and volunteer my services in some way. But while writing this, I've realised that there's no need to resist those urges - I think I'm going to e-mail the organiser immediately and offer my trust fund. ;)
So I'm back, from outer space, and I'm ready to blog.
The post title refers to a newspaper poster I have sitting on my desk; I nicked it from one of the elevators here at work because I just couldn't resist it (I'm 27, in case you didn't get that). It's linked to a story in today's Cape Argus, which states that "Old age begins at 27 as mental powers start to decline, according to scientists.
"Researchers have found that people's mental abilities peak at 22, before beginning to deteriorate just five years later."
Finally, a scientific rationale for how old I feel!
Compounding my doddery feelings on this lovely Cape Town Monday, I've just received an e-mail about my Matric reunion. It's scheduled for later in the year, and it's got several thoughts swirling through my addled brain.
1. The reunion has to be held in September to coincide with the Jewish new year (I attended a Jewish day school), or in December - because almost all of my classmates have left South Africa and only come home for major religious holidays or the year-end vacation.
That's pretty scary. A quick mental trawl of Facebook (or, after its recent reincarnation as an Afrikaans website, GesigBoek) reveals that most people I went to school with have settled in the US, UK, Australia or Israel. And most are not coming back, certainly not permanently.
2. The credit crunch plays a role in planning our reunion. The woman who is organising it, a former classmate, says that anyone with "trust funds" should let her know (she's only half-kidding, I promise), because there's "no budget" for an event of this nature.
How hard can it be? We need a venue, a nice kosher caterer, and a cash bar. Ta-da!
3. Oh my G-d, it's my 10-year reunion!
I was one of those kids who enjoyed school. I learned a lot, I had a lot of fun, and although there was angst about who liked me and who was cool and who wasn't cool and all that teenage stuff, I was generally quite a relaxed and happy teenager. When I matriculated, I was happy to be out of there, but only because I wanted to start the next phase of my journey. I'm looking forward to my reunion, to seeing how people have changed (and many won't have changed at all), to finding out who has been doing what and where and all of those things.
I've been resisting the urge to reply and volunteer my services in some way. But while writing this, I've realised that there's no need to resist those urges - I think I'm going to e-mail the organiser immediately and offer my trust fund. ;)
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The truth about Scarlett Johansson
Wow, spam can be hilarious sometimes. One of my colleagues received this e-mail and passed it on.
Your friend galabs2000@gmail.com thought you might be interested in this link:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Entertainment/life+this+Spirit/1111544/story.html
They also left you these comments:
IT IS NOT A SPAM, but if you received that message second and plus time JUST CLICK DELETE button and have a nice day. Don't feel bad, please understand original Scarlett's family very desperate to shut down that humiliating antichristian "actress" clones line career development. Hello dear Ladies and Gentlemen! I would like inform you that Scarlett Johansson ?actress? actually is a clone from original person Scarlett Galabekian last name, who has nothing with acting career, surname Galabekian, because of adoption happened in 1992. Clones was created illegally by using stolen biological material. Original person is very nice (not d**n sexy),most important - CHRISTIAN young lady! I'll tell you more,those clones (it's not only one) made in GERMANY - world leader manufacturer of humans clones, it is in Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Rhineland-Palatinate, Mr. Helmut Kohl home town. You can not even imaging the scale of the cloning activity. But warning! Helmut Kohl clone staff strictly controlling all their clones (at least they trying) spreading around the world, they are very accurate with that, some of them are still NAZI type disciplined and mind controlled clones, so be careful get close with clones you will be controlled as well. Original person is not happy with those movies, images, video, rumors and etc. spreading on media in that way it would be really nice if we all will try slow down that ''actress'' career development, original Scarlett will really appreciated that. Please remember that original Scarlett's family did not authorize any activity with stolen biological materials, no matter what form it was created in it was stolen and it is stolen. It all need to be delivered to authorize personals control in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. Original Scarlett never was engaged, by the way! Her close friend Serge G. P.S. CONTROLLING ACTIVITY OF ANY CLONES IS US MILITARY OPERATION. Check also here: http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2008/10/warning_stolen_biological_mate.html H.R. 534, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003, was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives on February 5, 2003. After discussion, it was passed on February 27 by a vote of 241-155. It now moves on to the Senate for consideration. This bill makes it unlawful for any person or entity to perform or participate in human cloning, or to ship or receive embryos produced by human cloning. The penalties are imprisonment of up to 10 years and fines of $1 million or more. These now join other nations as diverse as Norway, Australia, and many other countries, which had already added cloning for any purpose to their criminal code. And in Germany where it carries a penalty of five years imprisonment they know a thing or two about unethical science.
If I understand this correctly, some insane German organisation or individual is cloning nice young Christian people (women?) and turning them into pouty "sexy" Hollywood stars.
Perhaps this will placate one of my good friends, who hates Kiera Knightley with a fiery burning passion - the REAL Kiera is a nice person, promise, the "trout lips" look was only added during the cloning process (just chuck some collagen into the amazing cloning machine, and boom!)
Your friend galabs2000@gmail.com thought you might be interested in this link:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Entertainment/life+this+Spirit/1111544/story.html
They also left you these comments:
IT IS NOT A SPAM, but if you received that message second and plus time JUST CLICK DELETE button and have a nice day. Don't feel bad, please understand original Scarlett's family very desperate to shut down that humiliating antichristian "actress" clones line career development. Hello dear Ladies and Gentlemen! I would like inform you that Scarlett Johansson ?actress? actually is a clone from original person Scarlett Galabekian last name, who has nothing with acting career, surname Galabekian, because of adoption happened in 1992. Clones was created illegally by using stolen biological material. Original person is very nice (not d**n sexy),most important - CHRISTIAN young lady! I'll tell you more,those clones (it's not only one) made in GERMANY - world leader manufacturer of humans clones, it is in Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Rhineland-Palatinate, Mr. Helmut Kohl home town. You can not even imaging the scale of the cloning activity. But warning! Helmut Kohl clone staff strictly controlling all their clones (at least they trying) spreading around the world, they are very accurate with that, some of them are still NAZI type disciplined and mind controlled clones, so be careful get close with clones you will be controlled as well. Original person is not happy with those movies, images, video, rumors and etc. spreading on media in that way it would be really nice if we all will try slow down that ''actress'' career development, original Scarlett will really appreciated that. Please remember that original Scarlett's family did not authorize any activity with stolen biological materials, no matter what form it was created in it was stolen and it is stolen. It all need to be delivered to authorize personals control in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. Original Scarlett never was engaged, by the way! Her close friend Serge G. P.S. CONTROLLING ACTIVITY OF ANY CLONES IS US MILITARY OPERATION. Check also here: http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2008/10/warning_stolen_biological_mate.html H.R. 534, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2003, was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives on February 5, 2003. After discussion, it was passed on February 27 by a vote of 241-155. It now moves on to the Senate for consideration. This bill makes it unlawful for any person or entity to perform or participate in human cloning, or to ship or receive embryos produced by human cloning. The penalties are imprisonment of up to 10 years and fines of $1 million or more. These now join other nations as diverse as Norway, Australia, and many other countries, which had already added cloning for any purpose to their criminal code. And in Germany where it carries a penalty of five years imprisonment they know a thing or two about unethical science.
If I understand this correctly, some insane German organisation or individual is cloning nice young Christian people (women?) and turning them into pouty "sexy" Hollywood stars.
Perhaps this will placate one of my good friends, who hates Kiera Knightley with a fiery burning passion - the REAL Kiera is a nice person, promise, the "trout lips" look was only added during the cloning process (just chuck some collagen into the amazing cloning machine, and boom!)
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Recession? What recession?
Dearly Beloved and I have discovered that Saturday morning movies - the 9:15am movie - are a good bet if you want to avoid annoying people who talk. We tried this time slot with some success yesterday, although perhaps we spoiled the benefits a bit by going to a movie which has only just opened. There were about eight other people in the cinema to watch "The Duchess", and at least four talked during the movie, though they shut up when DB hissed "Sssssshhhhhh!" quite early on.
We then went to the 12:30 showing of "Burn after reading", and were quietly elated when by the time the lights dimmed there was no one else in the cinema. Our joy was short-lived: about 10 other people walked in two minutes later. None of them talked, but there was an elderly woman about six seats away from us, in the same row, who rustled packets, SHONE A TORCH and crinkled sweet papers extremely loudly throughout the movie. This was deeply annoying, but once I'd swopped sides with DB I was able to focus on the movie and ignore the old woman. DB is better at blocking out external sounds, and doesn't get tense when people talk during the trailers. I, on the other hand, start sweating the instant someone crunches their popcorn too loudly while I'm trying to watch some ad about an investment portfolio. I'm trying to breathe deeply and not sweat the small stuff, but as a naturally highly-strung kinda gal, it's hard.
DB says we're not allowed to spend a lot of money buying a huge plasma screen so we can watch movies at home. I even suggested that we could make our own popcorn and totally over-salt it to complete the experience, but she reckons that because it takes a while for things to hit the DVD rental shelves, we'd miss out. *sigh* I'm sad that considerate people are being driven away from the cinemas by rude, talkative people who don't consider anybody else's needs.
As for the movies, I'll give The Duchess seven out of 10 - Ralph Fiennes is incredible, and even "Trout Lips" (a friend's nickname for Kiera Knightley) isn't too dire - in fact, I think she does a good job here as a sort of prototype Princess Di, trapped in a loveless marriage, enduring her husband's many infidelities and trying to survive in a ruthless class-driven society that demands male children and women who keep their mouths shut. It loses points for being a little too long; it drags towards the end and there were a couple of points at which it could and should have ended. But not bad at all, particularly if you enjoy period costume dramas.
Burn after reading was a little disappointing, and I'm not sure why that's so. A stellar cast, great directors, and a funny premise - but something was missing. Maybe it's all a bit too glib? I just thought that with the Coen brothers at the helm, and with a cast that included George Clooney (brilliant as an immature sex-fiend), Brad Pitt (excellent as a totally moronic but sweet gym instructor), Frances McDormand (a woman who really wants to change her life, and reckons plastic surgery is the big cure-all) and a sadly under-utilised Tilda Swinton, plus John Malkovich being even creepier and crazier than usual, this movie would really spark. It didn't. I'll give it six out of ten and the benefit of the doubt - maybe the packet-crinkling granny distracted me too much.
Cavendish Square was a marvel/a nightmare, depending on how you view the world. It was absolutely packed with people, all of them streaming into the mall to spend, spend, SPEND like lunatics. Clearly nobody in Cape Town's southern suburbs has got the memo about this, like, totally uncool global recession. Yes, yes, that's terribly rich coming from someone who saw two movies in a row yesterday, and had pretty pricey popcorn to boot. BUT we did use DB's Discovery card to cut costs, and I think we're allowed to splash out a little sometimes, and also, we're not talking about me here so stop judging me already. Sheesh!
We then went to the 12:30 showing of "Burn after reading", and were quietly elated when by the time the lights dimmed there was no one else in the cinema. Our joy was short-lived: about 10 other people walked in two minutes later. None of them talked, but there was an elderly woman about six seats away from us, in the same row, who rustled packets, SHONE A TORCH and crinkled sweet papers extremely loudly throughout the movie. This was deeply annoying, but once I'd swopped sides with DB I was able to focus on the movie and ignore the old woman. DB is better at blocking out external sounds, and doesn't get tense when people talk during the trailers. I, on the other hand, start sweating the instant someone crunches their popcorn too loudly while I'm trying to watch some ad about an investment portfolio. I'm trying to breathe deeply and not sweat the small stuff, but as a naturally highly-strung kinda gal, it's hard.
DB says we're not allowed to spend a lot of money buying a huge plasma screen so we can watch movies at home. I even suggested that we could make our own popcorn and totally over-salt it to complete the experience, but she reckons that because it takes a while for things to hit the DVD rental shelves, we'd miss out. *sigh* I'm sad that considerate people are being driven away from the cinemas by rude, talkative people who don't consider anybody else's needs.
As for the movies, I'll give The Duchess seven out of 10 - Ralph Fiennes is incredible, and even "Trout Lips" (a friend's nickname for Kiera Knightley) isn't too dire - in fact, I think she does a good job here as a sort of prototype Princess Di, trapped in a loveless marriage, enduring her husband's many infidelities and trying to survive in a ruthless class-driven society that demands male children and women who keep their mouths shut. It loses points for being a little too long; it drags towards the end and there were a couple of points at which it could and should have ended. But not bad at all, particularly if you enjoy period costume dramas.
Burn after reading was a little disappointing, and I'm not sure why that's so. A stellar cast, great directors, and a funny premise - but something was missing. Maybe it's all a bit too glib? I just thought that with the Coen brothers at the helm, and with a cast that included George Clooney (brilliant as an immature sex-fiend), Brad Pitt (excellent as a totally moronic but sweet gym instructor), Frances McDormand (a woman who really wants to change her life, and reckons plastic surgery is the big cure-all) and a sadly under-utilised Tilda Swinton, plus John Malkovich being even creepier and crazier than usual, this movie would really spark. It didn't. I'll give it six out of ten and the benefit of the doubt - maybe the packet-crinkling granny distracted me too much.
Cavendish Square was a marvel/a nightmare, depending on how you view the world. It was absolutely packed with people, all of them streaming into the mall to spend, spend, SPEND like lunatics. Clearly nobody in Cape Town's southern suburbs has got the memo about this, like, totally uncool global recession. Yes, yes, that's terribly rich coming from someone who saw two movies in a row yesterday, and had pretty pricey popcorn to boot. BUT we did use DB's Discovery card to cut costs, and I think we're allowed to splash out a little sometimes, and also, we're not talking about me here so stop judging me already. Sheesh!
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Mr President, you dirty boy!
Question: does it matter who South Africa's First Lady is? Do you care who stands beside Kgalema Motlanthe during public events? Independent Newspapers' Fiona Forde opened a massive can of worms with her front-page articles in last weekend's papers that detailed Motlanthe's personal life, and it's sparked major debate here about whether a public figure's life is his own, or fair game for the press and public. Forde has written an op-ed piece which appears in today's papers across the Independent South Africa group - it makes for interesting reading, and appears in italics below.
My thoughts? I do care about the President's partner/spouse/wife IF she has a significant role to play in the daily running of my country. For instance, Grace Mugabe seems to exert a great deal of influence over her husband, and some pundits have suggested that Mugabe became really brutal in the wake of his first wife's death and his subsequent marriage to Grace - so yes, I'd like to know about her.
On this issue, though, I'm torn: I think the President is entitled to his privacy. I don't like the fact that he seems unable to keep his willy in his pants, and that he's allegedly impregnated a young woman but won't acknowledge this or take responsibility (though that's supposition - perhaps behind the scenes he IS being supportive, financially and emotionally). I dislike the fact that our president allegedly treats women in such a cavalier fashion. But in this, he's not alone - think of Jacob Zuma, who is almost certainly our next president, and South Africa's fascination with his polygamous lifestyle. Think of FW de Klerk, whose wife of many years was left in the dust when he traded her in for a newer model. Does their inherent weakness as men make them poor leaders? I don't know. It would be great to have a president who respects women (or better yet, a woman president who respects everybody). It would be lovely to have a president whose personal affairs are beyond reproach. But I don't think that's a realistic ask, since we're all human and flawed. And I think that if the president is able to run a country well, his private life should be just that - private.
But as you can tell from my rambling thoughts on this matter, I'm torn and undecided. Fiona Forde's op-ed is below; hope it offers some more coherent insights on this for y'all!
A months-long investigation carried out by Independent Newspapers into the first lady of this country has raised more questions than it has answered.
In an earnest endeavour to know who occupied the spousal office in the presidency, if anyone did at all, the Sunday Tribune revealed this week that there were three potential candidates alleged to be vying for a place at Kgalema Motlanthe's side. In a follow-up instalment in The Mercury on Monday, the ANC suggested the investigation was no more than a smear campaign, a poor attempt to cast a slur on the caretaker president in the run-up to the general election.
The president's private life was his own, party spokesman Carl Niehaus said. And it should be respected as such, he argued.
Or should it? As the president of the country Motlanthe occupies the most high-profile office in South Africa, a portfolio that not only casts him further into the public eye than ever before in his decades-long political career, but which comes complete with a private office that extends professional support to him and his spouse.
And it is within the president's private office that the spousal office resides, a body that "supports the spouses of the president and the deputy president", who according to the presidency's norms and procedures "are expected to fulfil the role of partner to the two political principals in all ceremonial, state and executive functions". This is according to the presidency's website.
And it is you and I who fund that office with our tax money, because just as Motlanthe is a public office holder, so too is his partner in life as the spouse of the president of South Africa.
So when Motlanthe was sworn in as caretaker president in September, just days after the ANC ousted Thabo Mbeki from office, it was unusual that there was no woman by his side. In keeping with the expectations of a first lady, as outlined above, his respective other half was expected to make her debut on that historic day. But there was no sign of her, yet it was common knowledge, based on the flurry of profiles that appeared in the run-up to the snap inauguration, that Motlanthe had a long-time partner, Mapula, the mother of his three children.
Questions
So where was she? Why would she not stand by his side on his first state function? Were the couple estranged? Was there another woman stepping into Mapula's shoes? And if so, who was she?
They were questions that came easily and from a very natural place of curiosity.
First spouses the world over are part and parcel of the presidential or prime ministerial package.
Michelle Obama is as well known to all of us as her husband, Barack, is. Cherie Blair was a figure who took a prominent place by her husband Tony's side during his time in office. So high-profile was Hillary Clinton that she went on to seek the top job herself. Jackie Kennedy remained in the public eye long after her husband's assassination.
And this is not a Western phenomenon. Although Graca Machel did not take on an official role, she became as much a public figure in South African life as Nelson Mandela did in his final years as president, and has continued to do so here and abroad to this day, and is known to all as the former first lady of South Africa.
We could write a book on Grace Mugabe, so prominent has she become in Zimbabwean life. In fact, Nigeria's former first lady has decided to write her own book, and paints a revealing, yet pathetic, picture of life with Olusegun Obasanjo.
Zanele Mbeki was never shy to appear by Thabo's side and during her day made full use of the spousal office. Yet she steered clear of the limelight at all costs.
And the media respected her for that and accepted her for what she was, a very private woman.
So why is it suddenly so contentious to ask who South Africa's incumbent first lady is? Or is it the answers that are contentious, answers that we were forced to reveal because the presidency would not answer the questions for us?
Answers that showed how there were apparently a number of women jostling for a place at the president's side, one of whom was said to be carrying his child.
What is still not clear is whether it is the question that is hurting the powers that be, or the answers that the investigation threw up. Had we revealed the name of one woman only, would it still constitute the smear campaign that Niehaus and many others believe we are a part of? Is it the answers, therefore, that are clouding the public-interest value of the question that has been asked?
"The test for me is the following," says Anton Harber, professor of journalism at Wits University. "Does the information tell us about the individual's character and values or capacity to lead? And in this case I think it does. I think we should know the fundamentals of the family relationships of our president because it's about character and values. He is a role model."
However, Mark Gevisser, author of the Mbeki biography, disagrees. "Insofar as there is a spousal office in the presidency, South Africans do have a right to know how their money is being spent. I do think it's appropriate to ask President Motlanthe whether and how he uses the funds allocated for his spouse, but I'm not comfortable with putting private citizens into the public eye the way the Sunday Independent and Sunday Tribunehas. I think it compromises their privacy, and I'm not convinced it enriches our political discourse," he said.
Regardless of whether it does or it doesn't advance the political debate, media lawyer Dario Milo highlights two questions which the saga raises.
"First, does the information reveal a private fact? If information is known to a significant number of people, it can hardly be termed private," he said.
This goes to the heart of the controversy the stories appear to have sparked, in my view. There is an assumption that this is a smear campaign at the heart of which are surely the rivals of the incumbent president, determined to sow seeds of doubt around his future career. A number of commentators have jumped, rather prematurely, to the conclusion that this is the work of one source only.
Yet there are four characters named in the story: Kgalema Motlanthe and three others and, potentially at least, four sources.
Besides his wife, the other two women only came to light after we continued to dig in various quarters, but never following a tip-off from any one person or from any member of the ANC or any other political party or person lobbying a political agenda.
Although critics have been quick to suggest that the timing of the publication dovetails nicely with the ANC's sensitive election lists - hence it must be a smear campaign - the fact is there was never going to be a good time to run a story like this. Motlanthe may have been the darling of the nation when he stepped into office in September, but soon after he found himself at the centre of the ANC's internal politics as the political temperature around the country began to soar.
Yet our question remained: who was South Africa's first lady?
Would it have been more or less contentious if this investigation was completed in December? Would it be more or less of the smear campaign it is painted as today had it lingered through to the eve of the general election? The reaction to the expose this week is as much a reflection of the state of the ANC's internal politics as it is about anything else.
"Secondly," Milo continues, "even if it is private, is there a public interest which justifies the disclosure? For example, the high court held in the claim by Manto Tshabalala-Msimang against the Sunday Times that the disclosure of the health minister's medical records was in the public interest - as a public figure she had to accept greater scrutiny than private individuals."
And as president of the country, Motlanthe is also the subject of scrutiny.
Had Motlanthe told us there would be no first spouse in his administration, for whatever reason, we would have accepted it as such. Had Motlanthe been more forthcoming about who he was as the man who was caretaker of the country, our curiosity would not have been so heightened.
I recall the eve of the inauguration when I asked Jessie Duarte, as party spokeswoman, where Motlanthe had been born when I was writing a profile of the man. I understood his birthplace to be Limpopo. She confirmed this. A day later she apologised profusely. He was in fact born in Gauteng, a piece of information that had come to her attention as she grappled with the biography of him which the ANC was posting on its website that day.
Secretive
Not even his own party knew basic, and I would argue not-so-private details, about the man who was about to step into Mbeki's shoes, which suggests a more secretive rather than a private person at the helm today.
"I think they (the ANC) have handled it particularly badly because they work on the assumption they could have kept it (the first lady) private," Harber adds.
"It's quite interesting to think about the Obama campaign. For at least two years he was subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny, and it does mean that as a result you have a president you know. One can assume that he has nothing to hide. I think that's a healthy thing, and I wish the same attitude would be adopted here.
"(Obama) admitted to having taken some drugs. There are other candidates who would have been destroyed by that information. By making the admission, he shows he is human. If Motlanthe had been open about his situation, this would have been diffused."
In the ANC's defence, I did not seek their comment this week on the story ahead of its publication. I turned instead to the presidency, because my abiding question was always about the first lady of the country, not the wife or private life of the ANC's deputy president.
"One of the key lessons to be learned from this," concludes Gevisser, "is that South Africa's leaders need to be more open in the way they manage information in a free society. You are entitled to your privacy, but surely Thabo Mbeki has already taught us that you cannot govern effectively from behind a veil of secrecy."
My thoughts? I do care about the President's partner/spouse/wife IF she has a significant role to play in the daily running of my country. For instance, Grace Mugabe seems to exert a great deal of influence over her husband, and some pundits have suggested that Mugabe became really brutal in the wake of his first wife's death and his subsequent marriage to Grace - so yes, I'd like to know about her.
On this issue, though, I'm torn: I think the President is entitled to his privacy. I don't like the fact that he seems unable to keep his willy in his pants, and that he's allegedly impregnated a young woman but won't acknowledge this or take responsibility (though that's supposition - perhaps behind the scenes he IS being supportive, financially and emotionally). I dislike the fact that our president allegedly treats women in such a cavalier fashion. But in this, he's not alone - think of Jacob Zuma, who is almost certainly our next president, and South Africa's fascination with his polygamous lifestyle. Think of FW de Klerk, whose wife of many years was left in the dust when he traded her in for a newer model. Does their inherent weakness as men make them poor leaders? I don't know. It would be great to have a president who respects women (or better yet, a woman president who respects everybody). It would be lovely to have a president whose personal affairs are beyond reproach. But I don't think that's a realistic ask, since we're all human and flawed. And I think that if the president is able to run a country well, his private life should be just that - private.
But as you can tell from my rambling thoughts on this matter, I'm torn and undecided. Fiona Forde's op-ed is below; hope it offers some more coherent insights on this for y'all!
A months-long investigation carried out by Independent Newspapers into the first lady of this country has raised more questions than it has answered.
In an earnest endeavour to know who occupied the spousal office in the presidency, if anyone did at all, the Sunday Tribune revealed this week that there were three potential candidates alleged to be vying for a place at Kgalema Motlanthe's side. In a follow-up instalment in The Mercury on Monday, the ANC suggested the investigation was no more than a smear campaign, a poor attempt to cast a slur on the caretaker president in the run-up to the general election.
The president's private life was his own, party spokesman Carl Niehaus said. And it should be respected as such, he argued.
Or should it? As the president of the country Motlanthe occupies the most high-profile office in South Africa, a portfolio that not only casts him further into the public eye than ever before in his decades-long political career, but which comes complete with a private office that extends professional support to him and his spouse.
And it is within the president's private office that the spousal office resides, a body that "supports the spouses of the president and the deputy president", who according to the presidency's norms and procedures "are expected to fulfil the role of partner to the two political principals in all ceremonial, state and executive functions". This is according to the presidency's website.
And it is you and I who fund that office with our tax money, because just as Motlanthe is a public office holder, so too is his partner in life as the spouse of the president of South Africa.
So when Motlanthe was sworn in as caretaker president in September, just days after the ANC ousted Thabo Mbeki from office, it was unusual that there was no woman by his side. In keeping with the expectations of a first lady, as outlined above, his respective other half was expected to make her debut on that historic day. But there was no sign of her, yet it was common knowledge, based on the flurry of profiles that appeared in the run-up to the snap inauguration, that Motlanthe had a long-time partner, Mapula, the mother of his three children.
Questions
So where was she? Why would she not stand by his side on his first state function? Were the couple estranged? Was there another woman stepping into Mapula's shoes? And if so, who was she?
They were questions that came easily and from a very natural place of curiosity.
First spouses the world over are part and parcel of the presidential or prime ministerial package.
Michelle Obama is as well known to all of us as her husband, Barack, is. Cherie Blair was a figure who took a prominent place by her husband Tony's side during his time in office. So high-profile was Hillary Clinton that she went on to seek the top job herself. Jackie Kennedy remained in the public eye long after her husband's assassination.
And this is not a Western phenomenon. Although Graca Machel did not take on an official role, she became as much a public figure in South African life as Nelson Mandela did in his final years as president, and has continued to do so here and abroad to this day, and is known to all as the former first lady of South Africa.
We could write a book on Grace Mugabe, so prominent has she become in Zimbabwean life. In fact, Nigeria's former first lady has decided to write her own book, and paints a revealing, yet pathetic, picture of life with Olusegun Obasanjo.
Zanele Mbeki was never shy to appear by Thabo's side and during her day made full use of the spousal office. Yet she steered clear of the limelight at all costs.
And the media respected her for that and accepted her for what she was, a very private woman.
So why is it suddenly so contentious to ask who South Africa's incumbent first lady is? Or is it the answers that are contentious, answers that we were forced to reveal because the presidency would not answer the questions for us?
Answers that showed how there were apparently a number of women jostling for a place at the president's side, one of whom was said to be carrying his child.
What is still not clear is whether it is the question that is hurting the powers that be, or the answers that the investigation threw up. Had we revealed the name of one woman only, would it still constitute the smear campaign that Niehaus and many others believe we are a part of? Is it the answers, therefore, that are clouding the public-interest value of the question that has been asked?
"The test for me is the following," says Anton Harber, professor of journalism at Wits University. "Does the information tell us about the individual's character and values or capacity to lead? And in this case I think it does. I think we should know the fundamentals of the family relationships of our president because it's about character and values. He is a role model."
However, Mark Gevisser, author of the Mbeki biography, disagrees. "Insofar as there is a spousal office in the presidency, South Africans do have a right to know how their money is being spent. I do think it's appropriate to ask President Motlanthe whether and how he uses the funds allocated for his spouse, but I'm not comfortable with putting private citizens into the public eye the way the Sunday Independent and Sunday Tribunehas. I think it compromises their privacy, and I'm not convinced it enriches our political discourse," he said.
Regardless of whether it does or it doesn't advance the political debate, media lawyer Dario Milo highlights two questions which the saga raises.
"First, does the information reveal a private fact? If information is known to a significant number of people, it can hardly be termed private," he said.
This goes to the heart of the controversy the stories appear to have sparked, in my view. There is an assumption that this is a smear campaign at the heart of which are surely the rivals of the incumbent president, determined to sow seeds of doubt around his future career. A number of commentators have jumped, rather prematurely, to the conclusion that this is the work of one source only.
Yet there are four characters named in the story: Kgalema Motlanthe and three others and, potentially at least, four sources.
Besides his wife, the other two women only came to light after we continued to dig in various quarters, but never following a tip-off from any one person or from any member of the ANC or any other political party or person lobbying a political agenda.
Although critics have been quick to suggest that the timing of the publication dovetails nicely with the ANC's sensitive election lists - hence it must be a smear campaign - the fact is there was never going to be a good time to run a story like this. Motlanthe may have been the darling of the nation when he stepped into office in September, but soon after he found himself at the centre of the ANC's internal politics as the political temperature around the country began to soar.
Yet our question remained: who was South Africa's first lady?
Would it have been more or less contentious if this investigation was completed in December? Would it be more or less of the smear campaign it is painted as today had it lingered through to the eve of the general election? The reaction to the expose this week is as much a reflection of the state of the ANC's internal politics as it is about anything else.
"Secondly," Milo continues, "even if it is private, is there a public interest which justifies the disclosure? For example, the high court held in the claim by Manto Tshabalala-Msimang against the Sunday Times that the disclosure of the health minister's medical records was in the public interest - as a public figure she had to accept greater scrutiny than private individuals."
And as president of the country, Motlanthe is also the subject of scrutiny.
Had Motlanthe told us there would be no first spouse in his administration, for whatever reason, we would have accepted it as such. Had Motlanthe been more forthcoming about who he was as the man who was caretaker of the country, our curiosity would not have been so heightened.
I recall the eve of the inauguration when I asked Jessie Duarte, as party spokeswoman, where Motlanthe had been born when I was writing a profile of the man. I understood his birthplace to be Limpopo. She confirmed this. A day later she apologised profusely. He was in fact born in Gauteng, a piece of information that had come to her attention as she grappled with the biography of him which the ANC was posting on its website that day.
Secretive
Not even his own party knew basic, and I would argue not-so-private details, about the man who was about to step into Mbeki's shoes, which suggests a more secretive rather than a private person at the helm today.
"I think they (the ANC) have handled it particularly badly because they work on the assumption they could have kept it (the first lady) private," Harber adds.
"It's quite interesting to think about the Obama campaign. For at least two years he was subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny, and it does mean that as a result you have a president you know. One can assume that he has nothing to hide. I think that's a healthy thing, and I wish the same attitude would be adopted here.
"(Obama) admitted to having taken some drugs. There are other candidates who would have been destroyed by that information. By making the admission, he shows he is human. If Motlanthe had been open about his situation, this would have been diffused."
In the ANC's defence, I did not seek their comment this week on the story ahead of its publication. I turned instead to the presidency, because my abiding question was always about the first lady of the country, not the wife or private life of the ANC's deputy president.
"One of the key lessons to be learned from this," concludes Gevisser, "is that South Africa's leaders need to be more open in the way they manage information in a free society. You are entitled to your privacy, but surely Thabo Mbeki has already taught us that you cannot govern effectively from behind a veil of secrecy."
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Misanthropy and a movie review
Firstly: go and see Revolutionary Road. It's an extremely good movie. More on this shortly.
Secondly: WHY do people go to movies and talk throughout? What's the point of paying between R20 and R40, depending on the cinema, to sit in the dark and talk? And why do people have no shame about talking during movies? The couple next to me giggled for most of Revolutionary Road last night, and despite repeated "Shhhhs!" and "Please be quiet" requests from me, they continued. It was SO SO frustrating and rude.
I really enjoy watching movies in cinemas; I like the whole experience of purchasing a ticket, buying popcorn, settling into my seat, watching the trailers and getting to see a film on the big screen. But no matter when or where we go to movies, there are always people talking. A couple of weekends ago DB and I went to see Nick and Norah's infinite playlist. There were three other people in the cinema: an elderly woman who walked out after 15 minutes, perhaps realising that this emo-youth flick wasn't to her taste, and two women who came in during the credits and sat down right in front of DB and I. They started talking immediately, and when DB leaned forward and said, "Please stop talking", one of the women turned and glared at her! We then moved six rows back, and were able to watch the rest of the movie undisturbed.
Two of my mates tell of going to see a film at Cavendish Square, on its main screen (there's a Cinema Nouveau there, too, so the 'main screen' refers to the space in which major mainstream releases are shown). They were barely able to watch the movie, as kids ran amok throughout, talked and played with cellphones. Upon complaining to the manager, during the screening, my friends were told that they would have to deal with it - those kids went to movies there often, and spent their parents' money there, and amounted to bums on seats. So my friends had no rights, basically.
DB and I have now decided we're going to give very early-morning movies on Saturdays a try. Hopefully people are still sleeping then, and the only other people in the cinemas will be polite couples or quiet individuals. If that fails, I'm giving up on big-screen movies: we'll just have to rent DVDs instead, make our own popcorn at home and forgo the great experience of seeing on-circuit movies because other people are rude and inconsiderate.
On to the movie review:
Revolutionary Road is NOT American Beauty, although it's directed by the same man, Sam Mendes. The latter, his earlier masterpiece which is regarded by many as a modern classic and which won several Oscars, explored stifling American suburbia with a touch of gorgeous, delicious humour and malice. His new film is just bleak - there's no light at the end of the tunnel, no Kevin Spacey reinventing himself as a middle-aged sex god. But bleak is not atrocious, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Kate Winslet is an incredible actress, probably one of the best of her generation, and she blows Leonardo di Caprio off the screen as they reunite (post-Titanic) to play a married couple grappling with mediocrity, mortality and dreams. That's not to say Leo sucks - he just looks a little wrong for his role, because, even aged 33 or so, he looks like he's just turned 20. Still, they work well together and their chemistry is spot-on.
Winslet and Di Caprio play a young married couple, the Wheelers, who live on (duh!) Revolutionary Road in suburban 1950s America. They have two kids, he has a crappy sales job that is slowly draining the life from him, and she wishes things could be different. They try to change, to escape their middle-class trap, and in doing so they scratch open a lot of wounds - their own, and those of the people around them who think that seeking change is irresponsible and immature.
Don't expect a happy ending. Don't expect to walk out feeling joyful about life. But DO see this movie: Winslet is breathtaking, Kathy Bates as a nosy estate agent is wonderful, and Mendes' portrait of ordinary people struggling to be "special" in some way is really fantastic. Eight out of 10, losing points because Leo's not 100% up to the task at hand and because I felt like killing myself when we walked out. Making the audience suicidal isn't very sporting, I reckon.
I'm hoping to review Boy A and Burn after reading after the weekend, and we're also keen to see Vicky Christina Barcelona and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. If you've seen any of these, or any other movie which you think people should check out, please let us all know - you can post in the comments section, or drop me an e-mail and I'll post it on your behalf :)
Secondly: WHY do people go to movies and talk throughout? What's the point of paying between R20 and R40, depending on the cinema, to sit in the dark and talk? And why do people have no shame about talking during movies? The couple next to me giggled for most of Revolutionary Road last night, and despite repeated "Shhhhs!" and "Please be quiet" requests from me, they continued. It was SO SO frustrating and rude.
I really enjoy watching movies in cinemas; I like the whole experience of purchasing a ticket, buying popcorn, settling into my seat, watching the trailers and getting to see a film on the big screen. But no matter when or where we go to movies, there are always people talking. A couple of weekends ago DB and I went to see Nick and Norah's infinite playlist. There were three other people in the cinema: an elderly woman who walked out after 15 minutes, perhaps realising that this emo-youth flick wasn't to her taste, and two women who came in during the credits and sat down right in front of DB and I. They started talking immediately, and when DB leaned forward and said, "Please stop talking", one of the women turned and glared at her! We then moved six rows back, and were able to watch the rest of the movie undisturbed.
Two of my mates tell of going to see a film at Cavendish Square, on its main screen (there's a Cinema Nouveau there, too, so the 'main screen' refers to the space in which major mainstream releases are shown). They were barely able to watch the movie, as kids ran amok throughout, talked and played with cellphones. Upon complaining to the manager, during the screening, my friends were told that they would have to deal with it - those kids went to movies there often, and spent their parents' money there, and amounted to bums on seats. So my friends had no rights, basically.
DB and I have now decided we're going to give very early-morning movies on Saturdays a try. Hopefully people are still sleeping then, and the only other people in the cinemas will be polite couples or quiet individuals. If that fails, I'm giving up on big-screen movies: we'll just have to rent DVDs instead, make our own popcorn at home and forgo the great experience of seeing on-circuit movies because other people are rude and inconsiderate.
On to the movie review:
Revolutionary Road is NOT American Beauty, although it's directed by the same man, Sam Mendes. The latter, his earlier masterpiece which is regarded by many as a modern classic and which won several Oscars, explored stifling American suburbia with a touch of gorgeous, delicious humour and malice. His new film is just bleak - there's no light at the end of the tunnel, no Kevin Spacey reinventing himself as a middle-aged sex god. But bleak is not atrocious, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Kate Winslet is an incredible actress, probably one of the best of her generation, and she blows Leonardo di Caprio off the screen as they reunite (post-Titanic) to play a married couple grappling with mediocrity, mortality and dreams. That's not to say Leo sucks - he just looks a little wrong for his role, because, even aged 33 or so, he looks like he's just turned 20. Still, they work well together and their chemistry is spot-on.
Winslet and Di Caprio play a young married couple, the Wheelers, who live on (duh!) Revolutionary Road in suburban 1950s America. They have two kids, he has a crappy sales job that is slowly draining the life from him, and she wishes things could be different. They try to change, to escape their middle-class trap, and in doing so they scratch open a lot of wounds - their own, and those of the people around them who think that seeking change is irresponsible and immature.
Don't expect a happy ending. Don't expect to walk out feeling joyful about life. But DO see this movie: Winslet is breathtaking, Kathy Bates as a nosy estate agent is wonderful, and Mendes' portrait of ordinary people struggling to be "special" in some way is really fantastic. Eight out of 10, losing points because Leo's not 100% up to the task at hand and because I felt like killing myself when we walked out. Making the audience suicidal isn't very sporting, I reckon.
I'm hoping to review Boy A and Burn after reading after the weekend, and we're also keen to see Vicky Christina Barcelona and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. If you've seen any of these, or any other movie which you think people should check out, please let us all know - you can post in the comments section, or drop me an e-mail and I'll post it on your behalf :)
Sunday, January 25, 2009
An interesting article about emigration and patriotism
I've said before that I really enjoy Sarah Britten's blog on Thought Leader, and I particularly enjoyed this one (sorry, STILL no links - I follow the instructions dutifully, but they never bloody well work!) You can see the original piece at http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/sarahbritten/2009/01/24/the-aggressive-south-african-patriot
-------------
I used to fight a lot with the South African expats I encountered online. I hated their obsession with bad news; I hated their self-righteousness, their thinly veiled racism and “told you so” attitudes. Once I wrote a piece on expats for the Sunday Times which found its way onto most of the expat forums around the world – for a while, I suspect, I was one of the most hated people — along with Robert Mugabe and Charles Nqakula — in expatdom.
So it’s ironic that, through blogging about the experience of moving to Australia on Thought Leader, I’ve discovered that there’s another species of offensive South African out there: the aggressive patriot. The type of individual who responds to any mention of leaving South Africa with rudeness and aggression — as in this instance — who registers any report of anything other than beaches/weather/ wildlife as an unforgivable instance of “whining”, who thinks that “well, why do you visit then?” is an intelligent refutation of anything they interpret as criticism. For the aggressive patriot, the act of moving to another country — especially Australia — is an act of treason and anyone who wishes to move can be likened to cancer which must be treated.
I know: I used to be one of them.
But now that I have moved to the dark side — or at least, to a time zone nine hours ahead of South Africa — I have discovered that the aggressive patriot is just as off-putting as the aggressive expat. When I started writing this blog, I thought it might be an opportunity to talk about a country to which many South Africans have moved, but which gets almost no coverage unless it’s in the sport pages.**
Alas, the word “Australia” seems to trigger responses which, judging by many of the comments that have been made since I started writing back in May last year, largely bypass the higher faculties. Take my blog about the experience of being burgled. It was actually about how crap ADT is and how much money they charge for doing eff-all, but that’s not how anyone read it.
No, the fact that I had the temerity to write about something that actually happened to me*** was an unforgivable (or, in the case of other expats, laudable) attack on South Africa. Apparently, to write about a personal crime experience can only be interpreted as “whining”, and if I’m going to write about that sort of thing, well, how dare I visit my family in the first place?
Apparently, when it comes to South Africa, thou shalt be positive or else.
The thing with aggression is it tells you so much about people. Racists are deeply threatened by and/or attracted to the Other; homophobes are themselves quite likely to harbour homosexual tendencies. I strongly suspect that South Africans, especially white South Africans, who attack South African expats, secretly wish that they, too, were safely over the ocean. Expats horrify them precisely because they embody the unthinkable, inexpressible desire to leave. Every anecdote of crime, every criticism of service delivery, every positive report of life elsewhere, makes it that much harder to pretend that everything is hunky dory, that they’ve made the right choice.
Because they’re really, really not sure that they have.
South Africans who are comfortable with living in South Africa despite its problems don’t see any point in arguing with expats. What for? They haven’t invested emotionally in the issue; they have better things to do. If some people want to leave, well, bully for them.
On the other hand, those who issue personal attacks do so because they feel threatened by what is written — and they feel threatened because somehow makes it harder for them to maintain that all-important cognitive dissonance when it comes to the post-Rainbow Nation, without ending up in Weskoppies.
So next time they feel that familiar itch in that chip on their shoulder, perhaps they should take a look at themselves first and think about why it is that an insignificant little blog can piss them off so very much.
* Unless of course, the expat in question is a leftist academic/ film-maker/ artist who ostensibly moves to a country to be with other leftist academics/ film-makers/ artists, in which case it is apparently ok.
** The reverse is also true. South Africa gets very little coverage in the Australian press, with the exception of the sports pages. They’re far more interested in Zimbabwe.
***And my crime story was pretty anodyne. Three days after I arrived back in Sydney, my husband forwarded me an SMS from a friend reporting that his father had shot dead a robber in his home that morning. “Too close for comfort,” he said. Our friend has an American passport and I can’t see him staying in SA much longer.
------
It raises some fascinating questions about what it means to be patriotic, and why some South Africans react some violently to expats in all forms. I'll sum up my thoughts and questions on the matter thus, as Sarah B says it much better on her blog:
1. Can one be a patriotic South African while living outside the country?
2. Does "patriotism" require a violent dislike for every other country in the world?
3. Assuming expats go overseas and don't spend their lives bitching about SA and how awful they think it is, shouldn't we just let them go? Isn't emigration a very personal choice?
4. And, finally, how - in 2009, when we've acknowleged that the world is changing and our notions of borders are changing too - can we still be so utterly opposed to people moving around the world?
5. Oh, and one more thing, based on the DA's announcement that it has filed papers in the Cape High Court designed to give Saffas living overseas the right to vote: should expats have the right to vote? Or, once you more-or-less permanently leave the country, do you give up that right?
-------------
I used to fight a lot with the South African expats I encountered online. I hated their obsession with bad news; I hated their self-righteousness, their thinly veiled racism and “told you so” attitudes. Once I wrote a piece on expats for the Sunday Times which found its way onto most of the expat forums around the world – for a while, I suspect, I was one of the most hated people — along with Robert Mugabe and Charles Nqakula — in expatdom.
So it’s ironic that, through blogging about the experience of moving to Australia on Thought Leader, I’ve discovered that there’s another species of offensive South African out there: the aggressive patriot. The type of individual who responds to any mention of leaving South Africa with rudeness and aggression — as in this instance — who registers any report of anything other than beaches/weather/ wildlife as an unforgivable instance of “whining”, who thinks that “well, why do you visit then?” is an intelligent refutation of anything they interpret as criticism. For the aggressive patriot, the act of moving to another country — especially Australia — is an act of treason and anyone who wishes to move can be likened to cancer which must be treated.
I know: I used to be one of them.
But now that I have moved to the dark side — or at least, to a time zone nine hours ahead of South Africa — I have discovered that the aggressive patriot is just as off-putting as the aggressive expat. When I started writing this blog, I thought it might be an opportunity to talk about a country to which many South Africans have moved, but which gets almost no coverage unless it’s in the sport pages.**
Alas, the word “Australia” seems to trigger responses which, judging by many of the comments that have been made since I started writing back in May last year, largely bypass the higher faculties. Take my blog about the experience of being burgled. It was actually about how crap ADT is and how much money they charge for doing eff-all, but that’s not how anyone read it.
No, the fact that I had the temerity to write about something that actually happened to me*** was an unforgivable (or, in the case of other expats, laudable) attack on South Africa. Apparently, to write about a personal crime experience can only be interpreted as “whining”, and if I’m going to write about that sort of thing, well, how dare I visit my family in the first place?
Apparently, when it comes to South Africa, thou shalt be positive or else.
The thing with aggression is it tells you so much about people. Racists are deeply threatened by and/or attracted to the Other; homophobes are themselves quite likely to harbour homosexual tendencies. I strongly suspect that South Africans, especially white South Africans, who attack South African expats, secretly wish that they, too, were safely over the ocean. Expats horrify them precisely because they embody the unthinkable, inexpressible desire to leave. Every anecdote of crime, every criticism of service delivery, every positive report of life elsewhere, makes it that much harder to pretend that everything is hunky dory, that they’ve made the right choice.
Because they’re really, really not sure that they have.
South Africans who are comfortable with living in South Africa despite its problems don’t see any point in arguing with expats. What for? They haven’t invested emotionally in the issue; they have better things to do. If some people want to leave, well, bully for them.
On the other hand, those who issue personal attacks do so because they feel threatened by what is written — and they feel threatened because somehow makes it harder for them to maintain that all-important cognitive dissonance when it comes to the post-Rainbow Nation, without ending up in Weskoppies.
So next time they feel that familiar itch in that chip on their shoulder, perhaps they should take a look at themselves first and think about why it is that an insignificant little blog can piss them off so very much.
* Unless of course, the expat in question is a leftist academic/ film-maker/ artist who ostensibly moves to a country to be with other leftist academics/ film-makers/ artists, in which case it is apparently ok.
** The reverse is also true. South Africa gets very little coverage in the Australian press, with the exception of the sports pages. They’re far more interested in Zimbabwe.
***And my crime story was pretty anodyne. Three days after I arrived back in Sydney, my husband forwarded me an SMS from a friend reporting that his father had shot dead a robber in his home that morning. “Too close for comfort,” he said. Our friend has an American passport and I can’t see him staying in SA much longer.
------
It raises some fascinating questions about what it means to be patriotic, and why some South Africans react some violently to expats in all forms. I'll sum up my thoughts and questions on the matter thus, as Sarah B says it much better on her blog:
1. Can one be a patriotic South African while living outside the country?
2. Does "patriotism" require a violent dislike for every other country in the world?
3. Assuming expats go overseas and don't spend their lives bitching about SA and how awful they think it is, shouldn't we just let them go? Isn't emigration a very personal choice?
4. And, finally, how - in 2009, when we've acknowleged that the world is changing and our notions of borders are changing too - can we still be so utterly opposed to people moving around the world?
5. Oh, and one more thing, based on the DA's announcement that it has filed papers in the Cape High Court designed to give Saffas living overseas the right to vote: should expats have the right to vote? Or, once you more-or-less permanently leave the country, do you give up that right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
