kameraad mhambi

A few weeks ago Murray Hunter emailed me. How hard would it be to set up a tool to combat corruption he asked. Well I said, lets meet. It is something I have been thinking about for some time.

Over a few beer we discussed the issue with Adriaan Pelzer. I was very much in the frame of mind of first hand corruption reporting, via a tool like Ushahidi, the Kenyan incident crowd-sourcing tool.

But after some thought I agreed that starting off with a tool where existing information is sorted tagged, and made sense of is very doable and valuable.

Below is your first draft wireframes. Please do contribute and give us your opinion on our Project blog. We have also set up a Facebook group.

It’s time to stop moaning and make a positive difference.

In the last two days we’ve been treated to such ill informed, bad and reductionist journalism about the Dutch and their relationship to Afrikaners and culpability for colonialism and apartheid, that I just had to quickly write this blog post. So what exactly is the relationship?

Fact 1

The Dutch state, the Netherlands, never decided to colonise the Cape, South Africa’s Southern most province.

Fact 2

A Dutch company based in Amsterdam, the Dutch East India Company (bigger and more powerful than Wallmart today – it even had its own warships) decided to build a “halfweg stasie” – a refueling station for its ships – where modern day Cape Town is.

Fact 3.

The majority of the employees, were not Dutch, but German. There were also, Swedish Danish, employees and a few Portuguese.

Fact 4

There was an industrial dispute, the employees of the company claimed this Wallmart paid them too little, went freelance – and started the colonisation process. Each time the company increased the size of the area under their control to bring the errant workers under their control, the workers scampered over the border.

The British tried the same later and also failed, and them let them be. Until gold was discovered.

Fact 5

The company brought slaves from the East, Malaysia and Sri-Lanka today, and the Governor of the company that created Stellenbosch, Simon van der Stel was Javanese himself. Most coloureds – the majority of inhabitants of the Cape – are their descendants and they speak Afrikaans.

Fact 6

More than 10% of Afrikaners were in fact French Huguenots who arrived around 1700.

Fact 7

The first guy to call himself an Afrikaner was Hendrik Biebouw. His father was German and his sister a coloured. He was pulled off his horse by a Dutch magistrate after speeding through Stellenbocsh drunk.

The Dutch magistrate hit him with a cane. Biebouw who – unlike the Magistrate – was born in South Africa protested, “you can’t hit me, I’m an Afrikaner”. As was customary at the time for disciplinary matters Biebouw was deported to Australia.

Fact 8

The Dutch King asked the British to protect the company in 1796 from the French during the Napoleonic wars. When the British arrived they were not received with open arms, but were shot at by the settlers (not the last time), who disliked the Dutch King who had never held any sway, and never showed much interest. They supported Napoleon and spurned on by the Americans, were Republicans to boot.

Fact 9

The Dutch had very little contact and cultural exchange with Afrikaners from 1806 – when the British took over completely – until today. Boer War leader and later prime minister Jan Smuts was educated in the Netherlands, and so was some Afrikaans writers in the 1950’s and 1960’s during an era of burgeoning cultural contact, but apartheid, which the Dutch vehemently opposed – put paid to any further contact.

Fact 10

Very few towns founded by Afrikaners, especially significant ones, had any link with Dutch ones, quite unlike towns in Spanish, British and Portuguese colonies. They had by and large home grown names and indicative of the cultural disconnect.

Fact 11

The Dutch, like the Germans and the French did not support the Boer republics during the Anglo Boer War (even after being begged to), being scared of the mighty British empire. The Germans did supply weapons, and the Dutch sent a ship to pick up Paul Kruger, Transvaal president and ship him to exile. Kruger however preferred to spend exile in Switzerland.

Fact 12

The Dutch supported the ANC and liberation movements like SWAPO during the apartheid years. The Afrikaner Nationalists despised the Dutch for this.

Fact 13

Afrikaans – contains many Dutch and Dutch based words. But its negation is based on French, the so-called dubbel nie. Afrikaans verbs don’t conjugate like Dutch ones and is much simplified. Afrikaans also contains much by way of Malaysian words like baie and quite a bit of Zulu.

Fact 14

The Dutch the mangle their words with a nasal twang which makes even understandable words incomprehensible to Afrikaans speakers.

Fact 15

The first written Afrikaans is a translation of the Koran.

Fact 16

The Ducth were, for a long time, rather embarrassed about Afrikaans & Afrikaners. Recently there has been a subtle mood change with increasing interest in Afrikaans music & culture.

Beebop, who often comments on this blog has regularly put the question to me, why don’t whities stop whining and do something positive?

That is a very good question.

Last Sunday Esebius Mackaiser took on this theme, after a debate between Antjie Krog and Rian Malan.

Their respective takes on the phenomenology of whiteness differ sharply. In the one corner there is Malan, who articulates a lived reality of a pale citizen who feels that his entitlement to speak has been obliterated by virtue of his pale skin. His opponent, Krog, speaks to a white reality that is one of continued privilege, thereby challenging the assumption of lost power inherent in the moaning and groaning of the Malan-types.

Yet, upon reflection, these two narratives are equally tragic and unhealthy. Whiteness has become trapped between victimhood and self-flagellation. This stops white South Africans from fully integrating into democratic South Africa in a way that retains their agency fully, sans Krog, but at the same time acknowledges their continued privilege, sans Malan. We need a white consciousness that transcends the embarrassing Krog-like yearning to be black – as if becoming the bantu that you had formerly oppressed is the ultimate mark of atonement. On the other hand, the Malan-like moaning festival needs to be exposed as less an expression of a profound truth about loss of citizenship than – to the shock and horror of too many whites, still – the democratisation of public space.

Esebius goes on the debunk two examples Malan used to show that whites cant partake in public debate. Namely himself and Van Zyl Slabbert (with Slabbert’s report on the South African voting system).

First, it is not just white commentators who are often not heard; black ones are ignored too. This has nothing to do with Malan’s whiteness, but everything to do with dishonest state machinery that tries to evade tough criticism from an active citizenry.

He continues:

Second, the Slabbert report has been shelved purely because of political calculations about the ANC’s interest in agreeing to replace the party-list, proportional representation system with some mixture of proportional representation and a constituency-based model. Even if that report was written by a black ANC sympathiser, it would still not have seen the light of day. Race is the wrong prism through which to see why Slabbert’s report gathered dust.

Esebius is right I think on the Slabbert voting report case. The rejection of Slabbert was not about race. It was about ANC real politic.

But he does not dwell on an earlier time when Slabbert was rejected by Mbeki. And that, Slabbert firmly believed, was because of his race.

R W Johnston recounts how much the relationship with Mbeki meant to Slabbert:

There is no doubt that Slabbert placed enormous store on his relationship with Mbeki — he was so grateful for his support on one occasion that he exclaimed: “I would die for that bugger.”

As I know from many conversations with Slabbert, he had high hopes that this relationship would ultimately lead him to playing a significant role in making sure the new dispensation would work.

“When the ANC take over”, he told me, “they’re going to need all the help they can get. And it’s vital for all of us that they succeed because only that way can the country succeed.”

Those hopes were spectacularly dashed by Mbeki.

But one example – that of Slabbert – is clearly not enough, and besides – Mbeki who was a known racist – is gone.

Esebius then digs up an example himself. A much better one.

This is not to deny dangerous undercurrents among the intolerant within the political arena. It is shamefully true, for example, that when the ANC Youth League responds to deputy transport minister Jeremy Cronin not by engaging his brilliant polemic on nationalisation but by dismissing him as a white racist, they are affirming Malan’s fears. But Malan exaggerates these pockets of intolerance.

Is it exaggerated?

I don’t think so and here’s the rub – its just a simple ‘white black’ thing either. The Malema camp of the ANC has made ample noises stressing the undesirability of having ministers that are not “African”.

And, besides Cronin, if one looks at the past year or so one would struggle to find a single ANC, Cosatu, SACP senior official or government minister that is not “African” that have spoken out on anything besides anodyne policy.

Why not?

My hunch is that they are politically astute. Any significant participation of them in the debates of the day, will be abused in the battle between the conservatives and the progressives about the future of the ANC.

In practice, whites coloureds and Indians are all but self censored less they strengthen Malema’s hand.

So hardly a week went by after I did my interview with Dan Roodt and I’ve changed my mind. I’ve been watching Mr. Roodt on Facebook. I’ve been watching what he writes and the comments he receives from others.

Not only is he a suurgat (sourpuss), he is venynig (he enjoys causing pain), and he is kleinlik (he is childish), but most of al Mr. Dan Roodt is dangerous.

Firstly he has wallowed is Bafana Bafana’s loss, praising Diego Forlan’s goal. If one can not have magnanimity of spirit at this point in time, a time of immense importance for many South Africans, one has to be very a very ungracious mean spirited person.

And his comments in this regard has been greeted by a chorus of derisory and racist agreement. (Bar one or two noteworthy people that protested, one stating that she is far right but she will support Bafana because they supported the Springboks.)

What I find disappointing about Roodt, is that much like the rudderless leadership of the ANC he detests, he does not show any principled leadership himself. But that I mean he does not bring those making racist comments on his status updates to heel. This means one of two things. He agrees with these crude racist comments or he is a Malema like populist, scared he will loose support if he spoke out.

And then there is this: Just last week Roodt wrote a post as to why Afrikaners are not yet mobilising and taking the next step to a volkstaat with reference to recent events in Belgium.

Flemish Belgium has just elected a party that has as its aim the creation of a Flemish state. Roodt laments that while the Flemish used to look to Afrikaners as an example of how to stand up for your culture, Afrikaners have now fallen behind.

Roodt then sets out how Afrikaners could achieve the same. Trough the ballet box its impossible he says. Then he discusses violence as an option and opinions that this will only work for Afrikaners if they act “defensively”. Like when there is mass farm invasions and Afrikaners has to respond to restore order.

Lastly he mentions the option of a cultural and political movement, which is what he is trying to achieve. Think Afrikaans schools, business organisations and universities.

This all sounds relatively benign but ignores the central fact that Roodt eventually wants to create a ‘volkstaat’ in and around the Pretoria area.

Now its worth taking a look at the situation in Belgium to which Roodt refers, because it is instructive.

Afrikaners live through-out South Africa, and everywhere they are in a minority. Also in and around Pretoria.

Flemish speaking Belgiums live in Flanders, and very few non Flemish speakers live there. Except for Brussels, which lies in Flanders but where the Flemish speakers are a small minority. The simple reason why the Flemish have not gone for independence from Belgium a long time ago is because they just can not seem to let go of Brussels. If they were willing to let go of Brussels, they could have had a state with Antwerp as its capital a long time ago. (Take note – Getting rid of the non Flemish from Brussels is not an option.)

Dan has his own Brussels, the area in and around Pretoria.

Roodt is not onosel. He must know that this area won’t become an Afrikaner only area without conflict. With or without a cultural political movement this area will not be unscrambled easily. Whether defensive or not, violence is a prerequisite.

Unlike Belgium South Africa has large areas of relatively open land. If Roodt wants a volkstaat, he should do it the ‘hard’ way. Oranje, the desolate area in the west of the country might be lacking shopping malls, but it has one very valuable thing that Dan’s plan does not have, the moral high ground.

I have been invited to ‘unfriend’ mister Roodt if I don’t agree with him and his nasty Facebook choir. And so I did.

Rian Malan, South Africa’s serial traitor of the heart put it eloquently in the Telegraph this week:

“South Africa has an extraordinary ability to make fools of those who attempt to predict its future. As I coasted into the airport’s shiny new parking lot, I realised that I’d shot myself in the foot yet again. I whipped out my cellphone and sent out an all-points SMS conceding my error and announcing that our organising committee’s slogan – “We’re ready” – seemed against all odds to be coming true.”

You will remember that the same Malan had said that the World Cup was like a loaded gun against South Africa’s head. And if we did not deliver, we’d be dead meat. Now exactly the opposite is happening. Malan says: “…when South Africans pull together, we can move mountains.” I agree.

I have been swept up in the optimism.

How incredible it wont be if South Africa made it to the last 8 of this World Cup?

Until fairly recently I thought that was extremely unlikely. It still is not very likely – but – recent performances, an unbeaten run of 12 matches – the last being against Denmark – and the tide of optimism sweeping the country makes you want to believe.

And to think, just two months ago, with the murder of Eugene Terreblance, we were fearing the country would tear itself apart. Then came the wonder of the Orlando Bulls. Boers being fetted as long lost brothers in black Soweto.

Add to that the aforementioned and previously hapless Bafana Bafana – the national squad -playing progressively better!

And now the stadiums are ready, the Gautrain – a high speed link between Johannesburg and the airport – has opened. A plan is clearly coming together.

The last few days I have been conversing with Sisiwami, proud owner of the Reprezent blog and lover of all things South African. She lives in Belgium and she’s been bugging me about how I found my recent trip to South Africa. You see I’ve been promising a blog post about it.

Said blog post was however, so negative, that I could not bring myself to publish it. Then I thought, I’ll wait till after the cup. I did not want to be the spoil sport of South Africa’s great moment.

Now I’m so glad I did not.

South Africans have been out on the streets today and yesterday making a terrible racket on their irritating Vuvuzelas. And I am happy!

We have gushed, a little mawkishly, and asked silly questions like this:

“Do you still doubt your love for this country?”

In a way the massive & emotionally charged outpouring of support by many South Africans are a sure sign of the insecurity amongst South Africans about the countries future. Many instinctively see the success of the World Cup as the countries last chance to halt its decent into the abyss of dysfunctional statehood.

Some – like Esebius Mackaiser – say we are deluded and point to the 1995 Rugby World Cup:

We just do not learn from history. The 1995 Rugby World Cup is falsely remembered as proof of sport’s ability to be a catalyst for bringing out lasting social cohesion. Films such as Invictus perpetuate such lies. The 1995 Rugby World Cup is, in fact, proof that sporting events can at best offer a temporary reprieve from disunity, not unlike the joyous feeling of slipping into a warm bath in the middle of winter. After a while, of course, the water gets cold and you are yanked back into reality, especially when Eskom has made it too costly for you to add more hot water.

I myself have willfully ignored things like this, this, this, this and this and especially this in the last week.

I want to believe.

I really like Rian Malan. He writes from the heart and he understands South Africa’s heart and its head. He is a romantic like me. But… although Malan’s wordsmithery and sentiment is class A, his analysis and forecasting has unfortunately been patchy, like often happens when you fret about the future of something or someone you like way too much.

We easily forget when the shiny Gautrain passes is the disgraceful treatment of the poor by our government. We forget that while many roads have been upgraded, the average South African road has fallen into disrepair. We cheer the first world cup hosted on the African continent while we sweep under the carpet the fact that African foreigners are living in fear for their lives in our country. We turn the blind eye on how Julius Malema is subverting our democracy.

But unlike Esebius I do believe in the power of symbolism. Perhaps from a black South African perspective the rugby World Cup did not help nation building. But for whites and Afrikaners in particular, seeing Nelson Mandela wear the Bok jersey meant a great deal.

But we need this World Cup to do something very different than to forge our racial groups into a whole.

When I was working for the Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in 1998 the World Cup was on in France. Our office went to watch the opening match between us and the hosts in a pub. And along came even the burly rugby loving Afrikaans cops of our investigation unit.

We had our arses kicked 4 – 0 if I remember correctly. My black colleagues laughed and joked every time France scored. That irked me a great deal.

The burly cops on the the other hand were distraught at the hiding we received, it was a disgrace for our country. We had walked into the pub together. We left separately.

I was puzzeled and worried. It was around this time that the seed was planted in my head that what Africa needs is not NGO workers or Bono or love or Aid, but a bit of Nationalism. A bit of that ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country vibe. A bit of Garibaldi. We need South Africans to turn from tribal, family and personal loyalties into citizens.

To change attitudes like that is very hard to do. But perhaps we can make a start if Bafana can kick some ass a la Bakkies Botha?

So may Bafana do well. May it turn us into a community of South Africans.

If we start irritating you because of our mawkish fawning this month, please forgive us. Its because we’ve had fairy tales come true before. Its because we have a lot to loose.

May Bafana help bring us together so that we can come together after the cup, because God knows, were are going to need to if we are to solve our problems.

This week I saw on Twitter that Dan Roodt was visiting London. I tweeted it and was Retweeted by Murray Hunter:

RT @wildebees SA right organising, Dan Roodt now in London after Belgian visit. <- jesus, I thought I felt a chill

Herman Wasserman immediately followed up with:

I smelled sulphur RT @muzhunter:RT @wildebees SA right organising, Dan Roodt in London after Belgian visit.<- jesus, thought I felt a chill

I have met sulpher smelling Dan Roodt before.

Kameraad Mhambi met Dan Roodt at the house of Tienie du Plessis. Tienie who? Tienie, ex graphic designer of Die Vrye Weekblad and of Hond fame.

Tienie started the first graphic novel/ magazine in Afrikaans – Stet. It was virulently against the Afrikaner establishment.
And it was to inspire people like Anton Kannemeyer, and later feature the first graphic strips that became Bitterkomix. Dan Roodt’s wife, Karen Konsentrasiekamp, a graphic artist herself and Roodt was a contributer to this magazine.

Dan Roodt struck me then as an odd right winger. Besides his past he did not look like an Afrikaner at all, but could easily be mistaken for a posh Frenchman.

Dan if you don’t know – wrote books himself laden full of sex and violence, the first being Sonneskyn en Chevrolet.

And since 2000 he has been campaigning for the right wing cause. (He incidentally claims he is not right-wing, but that the government is.)

Still he surprised in 2004 when he – after nobody else would – published Kontrei, a book by Kleinboer documenting Kleinboer’s visits to black prostitutes in bordellos in Hillbrow. It won the Jan Rabie prize.

I shot him an email to see if he was up for an interview. He was. And here is sneak preview. This bit is about Die Antwoord.

He does not rate Die Antwoord and does not think they will become popular in South Africa. Which is the odd thing about Roodt. He has a great analytical mind, but then at times he gets stuff sooo wrong.

Funny thing is, the interview was conducted at the house of young Roodt supporters. Just after the interview we joined them and we told them they we were talking about Die Antwoord. Unprompted their faces lit up and we were told how much they like Die Antwoord.

Unfazed Dan reconsidered his answer. Yes he said, “Many of the most eccentric people in South Africa are Afrikaners”. Thats because Afrikaners are so stereo-typed he continued. And some want to break that mold. Breyten Breytenbach is another example of this eccentric streak. And after the customary few seconds of silence, so was he in his youth.

So is Dan Roodt the devil reincarnated? I’m not sure. I admire the breath of his knowledge and his worldliness, a quality severely lacking in many Afrikaner conservatives. In some ways Roodt is more open minded, and less dogmatic than most lefties. You get the impression that almost no question would be left unconsidered, let alone refused.

I think he over-romanticizes Afrikaners, their history and their place in the world. Much like I do at times. But he is worse.

On the other hand Roodt strikes me as a man that thinks we live in a amoral world. I asked him what he thought of NP van Wyk-Louw’s statement that its better for a people to cease to exist that to live on in injustice. He dismissed it out of hand with reference to Darwin. Roodt I think would not mind a violent conflagration in South Africa. Provided his side gets out on top. He believes and strives for a Volkstaat (not Orania) which is in my opinion not only unrealistic in its scope and location, but would necessarily cause much hardship & even war if he and his fellows tried to achieve it. I asked him about this, and he maintained it won’t.

I currently sit on op of quite allot of interesting video material. I still have about an hour of material from my great interview with Gavin Evans. And I’ll start publishing that again soon. Then I have an interview with the World News Editor of the Financial Times, and thats what I will publish next.

I just spotted via a Tweet from @Sisiwami this new documentary coming out about one of my favourite cities in the world. And where I was born. And thank goodness its not made by an outsider.

Here’s the teaser. It’s called Unhinged and it looks interesting.