Category: News and Views
Yesterday, the headline in the Johannesburg star read 'How we fed man to lions'. The story was of a white farmer in South Africa who fed a black farm-worker to some lions after the farm-worker, who had been sacked a month or so before due to running a personal errand during his working hours, returned to the farm to collect some of his property. The facts seem to be that the farm-worker returned and the farmer ambushed him, assaulted him and, with the help of two other black farm-workers whom he had intimidated into helping him by threatening them that they too would be fed to the lions if they did not, drove the victim in a truck to a farm where they bred lions and threw him to them. So notorious was this story that it even made its way into the british papers. Now, what worries me is the wider consequences of what happened: yesterday, when the white farmer appeared before Johannesburg Magistrates for the first time the court was filled with anti-white chanting, and there was a lot of anger from the black community. I can quite understand why, this was a murder deeply shocking in its cold-blooded nature. Yet it is symptomatic of a deeper issue in that interviews with some in the public gallery and in the surrounding townships exposed a complete antipathy to white landowners who, said members of the black community, yearn for the days of apartite South Africa and still treat the black community like animals. I don't know that many white South Africans, but those I do know certainly aren't racist. And yet it only takes a high profile case like this to label the whole white community as racists and make them responsible for the terrible crimes of one particular farmer. This spells trouble, in my view, particularly because of what has gone on in Neighbouring zimbabwe. There, of course, white farmers have been expelled from their lands due to President Robert Mugabe feeding off crimes such as this and using them for anti-white propaganda. Given that Thabo Mbecki, president of South Africa, has previously declared himself an ally of Robert Mugabe, isn't it possible that South Africa might go the same way, with this incident acting as a sort of catalyst? Will we have, in effect, apartite in reverse? The country is already bedevilled by quotas which cause resentment, and the disparity in terms of wealth between the white and black communities in South Africa is also striking. So it doesn't take much to further inflame racial tensions, and I fear that an incident like this is all that is needed.
That is a truly shocking story ll and is so for the very reasons you have pointed out. Those of you who know me, will know that I grew up in South Africa, and I left in June 1993, 10 months before the country’s first multi-racial elections. It would be fair to say that most white south Africans are not racists, not by choice anyway, but by culture. When you are born into a society where black is black, and white is white, and never the two shall meet, well so to speak anyway, and that it is the black people who do the menial jobs and the whites who live in the nicest neighbourhoods, then that is what you believe to be right. I can remember having a conversation with a friend of mine in school telling her that my grandfather back in England was a dustman, and she was totally shocked that there were no black people in England to collect the rubbish. That was an attitude born out of ignorance, ignorance of the outside world, and ignorance of the fact that she was living in a country unique in its policies on race. In South African history, the children are … should I say were, because I’m sure they’ve re-written it by now, grin, that the voortrekkers moved from place to place, and everywhere they went, they were beset by large groups of blacks who murdered, raped and pillaged the whites. So when the whites finally set up a proper Afrikaaner government, apartheid was made law… please don’t correct my exact recollection of how things were taught – I was never very good at history, lol.
Since apartheid was abolished however, it is a commonly believed fact among white south African, especially farmers, that apartheid effectively has now been reversed. Attacks on white farmers by black people are very common. Just two weeks ago today, a friend of mine from school, and her husband were attacked on their farm in Pretoria. He was killed and she was wounded in the leg. Another friend of mine’s inlaws are farmers, and he told me once of how when they go there to visit, they all sleep in one room so that they are safer.
However, this culture of black people attacking white people is not unique to the countries where whites once ruled supreme. I have lived briefly, only very briefly, in other parts of Africa, and the stories that come out of these countries are horrific, I will share details if anyone cares to know.
Sugarbaby your insight into this topic is extremely valuable as I always thought it would be, when I posted it in the hope that you would see it and contribute. I take your point about apartite in reverse, and that is certainly the driving philosophy, or so it would appear, in Robert Mugabe's zimbabwe, and in neighbouring Namibia, although at least in Namibia the project of land reform is being carried out the right way i.e. the Namibian government is putting together consultation papers and will compensate and retrain or resettle any white farmer who loses his land as a result of land reform. what worries me, and notwithstanding the fact that I take your point, is that the conditions for apartite in reverse are ideal. Let's set aside the beliefs of the white community for the moment, and what do we have left? Whites living in the splendour of Table Mountain, or the rich suburbs of Johannesburg, durban and other cities, whereas the black community make up the vast majority of the population of the townships. In addition, you have the social attitude of the white population brought on, as you rightly observe, by the manner in which they were brought up (Although I must say that I don't believe this to be much of an excuse now, as publications such as the memoirs of former president FW De Clerck, and social realities such as the South African cricket team having both black and white heros, have surely done a lot to demolish the complexes of the ancien regime). Nevertheless as you say it most probably still exists. With these conditions, then, I would suggest that there is great scope for those who wish to, or for those who feel angry, to capitalise on this one murder case to push their reverse apartite agenda. My opinion is shared by Neil Manthorpe, a cricket journalist for the South African broadcasting Company, who first alerted us to this particular story. If he and I are right, it is deeply worrying and we in teh UK, as head of the commonwealth, should watch the situation very closely. south Africa is a vital ally in maintaining stability in Southern Africa as a whole.
The honest answer ll is that there is nothing we can do to realistically stop it from happening. It happens all over Africa in all honesty, but for the most part, the rest of the world is unaware of it. For instance, in Botswana, and also in Swaziland, white women are not allowed to work because all jobs are reserved for black people, white men are of course because a lot of the white men are ex pats from south Africa or from the UK who have the skills required to do the higher skilled jobs. And whilst efforts in Namibia are admirable, where exactly are they gunna re-settle these farmers … oh I know, the Namib is a big place, but Namibia doesn’t exactly have that much going for it – a diamond mine, a couple of coper and zink mines, a game reserve and thousands, and thousands of miles of desert in between. And the Namibian government is not without corruption – there is a famous story of when Namibia first gained independence – the UN gave them some $60000000 for .. whatever purpose, and Sam Njoma, bought himself an aeroplane! True story – I’ve lived in Namibia as well – wll my parents worked on a diamond mine there and I was at school in south Africa …
I''ve absolutely no doubt that you are right about all of this. But I can't agree that there is nothing we can do. I agree, that there is no way we can change social attitudes overnight, but my point was one I have made many a time over the preceeding months on the boards viz. that the government has left Zimbabwe to flounder amidst a violent and damaging project of land reform, where it should not have done so. Therefore, were the same thing to happen in the countries of Southern africa the commonwealth, who are after all in a position to exert considerable political and economic pressure on those countries, should immediately do so and not forget the region like they have done during the Zimbabwe affair. As to Namibia, I know that their land is not limitless and I know also that their government is not free from corruption, but at the moment, in a region where examples of how to do things properly are very scarce, their approach musts surely serve as an example of how to conduct land reform properly. I also may have made their plans sound like empty words which is perhaps doing them an injustice, for although I have not seen them myself they did meet with considerable approval from the british delegation at the most recent Commonwealth heads of government meeting.
well we have to ask ourselves why the government has not interveened in Zimbabwe, and I think the answer is simple -Zimbabwe, doesn't have anything that the world wants. There are a lot of scinics out there that say the reason the world is so involved in what goes on in the middle east, is because of oil. if there were a major crisis in the middle east then the oil price would skyrocket, and that would be felt the world over, but Zimbabwe has no resource that the world depends on like that.
But, Sugarbaby, Zimbabwe is a member of the commonwealth. WE intervened in the faulklands, didn't we? and what do the Faulklands have to offer the world? I actually think that commonwealth commitments go beyond the usual cost-benefit arguments, in that we owe a duty to our former colonies, just as the French do to Cote d'ivoir and Algeria and the like. Zimbabwe is, in short, Britain's responsibility.
This is all very fine and dandy, but why did you post it? we can all read the papers, so exactly what point are you trying to make Lawlord? forgive me if i've missed it, but as yet it has alluded me.
Nkosi sikelel' iAfrika
Well eadle, we all can read the papers in that we are capable of so doing, but many people choose not to. My point was not that which was made in the papers, which shows that you obviously have not read your chosen paper properly. my point was that one incident such as this might trigger the apartite in reverse movement, and I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on that. I also wondered what lay behind the social attitudes of the white community when it appears that they have the best access to education, the best access to international media, and the best means to inform themselves about the problems of apartite. Sugarbaby has provided a helpful insight into the social fabric of South African society, and the topic has now moved on to discuss whether Britain has a duty as head of the commonwealth to oversee this region which, at the moment, is not that high on the foreign policy agenda. i hope that this brief summary of what has gone before illustrates that this discussion is quite different from a trial report in a newspaper.
South africa hasn't really changed. The gap between rich and poor is just as huge as ever. The, "New south africa" is supposed to be a brave new world; in real terms this means a little less police brutality, not too much obvious physical abuse - however, it does not mean no more subversive racism or crime. Despite the plush tourist brochures, S.A. is almost out of control. And yes, we will see a similar situaiton to that prevelent in Zimbabwe. The governments are already asking white farmer to give up land, but soon asking will become telling. The continent of Africa will never be a tranquil, or even a quiet one. As long as there is black and whit, Shona and Matabele, ignorance and resentment, they will never find peace. I shall not bore you with history or anthropology, so i will shut up. Lawlord, (My name is Eidoel, E-I-D-O-E-L) i take your point, and yes, i didn't read my "chosen" paper/
So, the question then moves on: if these countries are our former colonies, which they are, do we not have a duty to do what we can for both the ex-patriot community, most of whom make up the white populations of those countries, along with the other citizens whose lives have been shaped so much by our legacy? I repeat, the French have a duty to cote d'ivoir, don't they?
This story is so horrible! And disgusting. I hope this white farmer gets the punishment he deserves. How cruel, and what a horrible way to die. And he didn't deserve it at all. No one deserves that!
But look at Algeres, read Camus. And yes we do, so what about recolonisation?
Recolonisation is not an option. Also, I have read camus, and he was writing when algiers was very different to what it is now. The situation has worsened because the French have neglected it so much. getting back to Britain, we have the commonwealth, and with Australia, canada and New zealand and the other wealthier nations thereof it is our duty to ensure the well-being of the citizens of the commonwealth. I would just want to remind Mr Blair that instead of pursuing foreign policy adventures in the middle-east and allowing government ministers to shake the hand of people like President Robert Mugabe of zimbabwe, he would do better to read the memoirs of FW De Clerc, and listen to what people such as Morgan Zvanjurigh, the leader of the movement for democratic change in Zimbabwe, are saying.
Simple - nuke 'em.
sensible suggestions and contributions, please.
Why? since when have the boards needed sensible suggestions and opinions? i must have missed something, but as far as i'm concerned, the Zone is about fun - if you wish to negate or edit this, then go elsewhere. I have given you my "sensible" opinion, if you don't like what i say, then don't read it, it is, as i'm sure you will point out from a legal context, a free country. Or maybe you wish to look at every board, every post, and make sure it lives up to your standards of clarity and intellect? if you want a serious debate, i suggest it be done via e-mail, so nobody else need feel guilty about having fun or expressing themselves.
Hey hey hey I have no problem with who posts what, including yourself. But this is one of the more serious topics you find on the zone and I actually thought we were having quite a good discussion here. I'm very sorry if I offended you, but such an extreme reaction really wasn't necessary, you know.
There will always be propaganda like the version of history Sugarbaby explained. Even if you assume some truth to that version of history, people sould realize that times have changed. Prejudice seems to be like a fire fed with propaganda and new incidents. Sadly, once negative stereotypes are formed, even positive incidents contrary to the stereotype are just looked at as "the exceptions to the rule" and the stereotype goes on. Of course, not everyone deals with stereotypes this way, but for many people, they are strongly held beliefs, and people don't let go of strong beliefs easily. We look at certain groups of people as the out-group, and consider them different from us, and we generalize about out-group members. Isn't it sad how the human mind works?
it is, but so often these stereotypes are fuelled by existing events. i had a message this morning from a friend of mine who lives in south Africa. only 5 weeks ago her and her husband were the victims of an attack on their farm. it is common still for black people to attack whites on their farms - her husband was killed and she sustained a leg injury. she told me that they had been broken into twice before the actual incident occurred. how can people shake their prejudices while things like this keep happening?
I agree with you both, but moreso with Sugarbaby in the particular case of South africa. but I will add that Thabo Mbeki doesn't help matters for the poorer South Africans, many of whom are black, by continuing to deny the aids problem in that country. Were he to do something about this it would at least mittigate the two-tier society which South Africa is really struggling to shake off.
And further proof that we are right about africa is Mugabe's admission that the land reform project has not worked. I shall post more about this shortly, but it is a very interesting article that I saw in the telegraph a couple of days ago but which I haven't yet found the time to read.