As a descendent of the many victims of discrimination in the post apartheid South Africa, I have found it somehow imperative to write about a plethora of circumstances where I was subjected to discrimination.
A very close friend of mine - white and compassionate, finally found the audacity to make reservations, on how it feels to be discriminated against amid the sensativity of the subject.It became apparent to me that, there are still good white people who bear no hate against people of colour.And for that reason, I will respect him forever more and his courage will remain embedded in my memory for sometime to come.
'Arnold, how does it feel to be seen as a second class citizen all the time or have you ever been subjected to racism'?
I sighed with relief that someone of a different colour had taken the initiative to ask a fellow brother from South Africa.
Racism still exist - even in the United Kingdom and at times it's so institutionalised and complex.All capitalist states - Britain included, are economically stable but racially biased.Racism is a pre-historic phenomenon.For people like Charles Darwin excerbated the plight by writing about the dubious Theory of Evolution.The theory's core philosophy is that white people are the epitome of human existence - because they have reached a full circle of evolution.But spare me a moment!If his theory was correct, why then has evolution of other races stopped developing.
In the meantime, Africa produces three quarters of the world's platinum,diamond,gold, and coal but still remains in economic limbo.Boffins and academics from renowned universities, will tell you that African leaders are corrupt.Yes to a certain extent i agree but who instigates all this?Capitalist states.These states have 90% of their country's companies exploring in Africa.How do they get the mining concessions?I suppose it's a subject for another day.
All second hand cars and electronic equipment are shipped to africa under the disguise of foreign trade.But if these cars and computers are not good for European states why should they be dispensed to Africans.
Therefore, racism and discrimination will live with us , for as long there is no equality between the rich and poor nations.
As an former exponent of the university of Winchester, I experienced discrimination almost every day but could do nothing about it.
There are underlying causes as to why the human race behaves the way they do.
to be continued
Saturday, 23 October 2010
Thursday, 14 January 2010
As a dark skinned being from the forgotten corners of the world, I never thought the United States of America would ever elect a person of colour for President. Not in this generation, I thought. But when Barack Obama shrugged off Hilary Clinton and John McCain to make history, I kept vigil for that defining night. There was something about this Obama that separated him from any other presidential candidate in America. He was black, educated and promised to change the world through diplomatic means. Now a few months after the historic inauguration, I am wondering if those famous speeches were mere newspeak.
In Nineteen Eight Four, George Orwell described a superstate, Oceania, whose language of war invented lies that passed into history and became truth. The party slogan was; ‘who controls the past, controls the future and who controls the present controls the past.’
Barack Obama is the leader of a contemporary Oceania. For his speeches, Obama was awarded the Nobel peace prize. Apparently for his extraordinary efforts to international diplomacy, his work on nuclear disarmament, climate change and of course changing American politics. I wonder who disarmed and what has changed in American politics?The nuclear disarmament and reduction of war heads is part of newspeak because,who will monitor this disarmament.Of course,the US,Russia and other European states might have signed the deals on paper but who will act as big brother to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons.And what will happen to those nations that defy the treaty?Essentially Oceania will constantly be at war with Eurasia and Eastasia.
Obama in his own words affirmed that, peace was no longer peace, but rather a permanent war that ‘extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan’ to ‘disorderly regions and failed states.’ He called this ‘global security’ and I believed him – and I suppose many people did. This is newspeak at its best. To the people of Afghanistan, which the US has invaded and occupied, he said, we have no interest in occupying your country.Therefore ,if the dismantling of terrorists takes another decade,is that not occupation?
In Oceania, truth and lies work in tandem. After 9/11 America were meant to hunt down Osama the fugitive in Afghanistan. But in 2003 found themselves focusing more on Saddam Hussein – apparently for weapons of mass destruction. What had happened to the search for the 9/11 kingpin? In the meantime Obama says Afghanistan is a ‘safe haven’ for al-Qaeda’s attacks on the west. In contrast, his own national security adviser, James Jones, said that there are fewer than 100 operatives in Afghanistan. So why would Obama sent 30 000 more troops to contain 100 operatives? Therefore there is no real change but only a change of tone. I remember Obama promising to close Guantanamo bay by January 2010 and now there are doubts over whether it will be closed at all. Was this another newspeak?The reasoning behind the delay apparently has to do with the recent insurgency activities in Yemen.
Sunday, 10 January 2010
I am somehow appalled that some so-called football scribes are vilifying South Africa following,the insurgency operation that gunned down three and injured eight Togolese team members in Angola.
As much as it hurts to say it, what happened in Angola should not be used as a benchmark on which to judge the credibility of all African countries.One thing to remember is that South Africa is by far Africa's epitome of democracy.Of course ,the country is still in it's elementary stages of democracy but i believe the taste of the pudding is in the eating - give them a chance
The European pundits quite easy forget that the events in Angola could have happened anywhere in the world.We are all walking on quicksand.So questioning Africa's credibility to host an event as big as the World cup is pure naivety.In the 1972 Munich Olympics bandits massacred Israeli atheletes and FIFA did not use the massacre as a scapegoat to deny West Germany hosting the beautiful game in 1974.London is the host city for the 2012 Olympics - given a nation at war in Afghanistan and Iraq,why were they awarded the Olympics?Remember the London bombings that took place a few years back!In fact London is a prime target for insurgency operatives but no one is writing against the city hosting the Olympics - given the risks involved.
Some are even saying Brazil should never host the Olympics and the World cup in 2016 and 2014 respectively because of the crime rate.I suppose,it's better to fight the enemy within than an unknown enemy.We must all acknowledge that we are living in a dangerous global village.No country is safe anyway.
With babes like these,why spoil the showcase
And passionate fans like these
And a rainball smile,surely it's too late to write negative about South Africa
Separatist rebel bandits who fired at the Togolese bus, leaving three dead and eight wounded in the Angolan province of Cabinda,have somehow taken the gloss off the spectacle that awaits the world in South Africa - come June 2010.The Africa cup of nations in Angola is meant to be a curtain raiser to the actual football mania - the FIFA world cup.This isolated and unfortunate incident has raised questions as to Africa's capacity to host the football spectacle.Jason Curtis, a friend of mine wrote on his blog that South Africa could be in for a rude awakening.Jason's tone on the blog clearly suggests that FIFA might have made a mistake in awarding the spectacle to Africa.
Yes football might have been invented by an Englishman but it was perfected by the boys from Rio De Janeiro.And the samba boys have won the world cup five times - all away from home soil.
If hosting football tournaments was based on precedents then England and German would have been hosting the showcase every four years, since 1966.South Africa is arguably Africa's economic powerhouse and doubting it's capacity to host the tournament defeats the purpose of a rotational system adopted by Sepp Blatter, since he took over from Joao Havelange.
We must remember that the Togolese entourage was attacked in the Oil rich province of Cabinda, where rebel groups reign terror.Cabinda is inhabited by one third of refugees from the war ravaged Democratic republic of Congo.There is obviously an invisible hand that bankrolled the bandits to carry out such a deplorable act.This might have been designed to obliterate the tournament and prove a point that Africa is never ready and was never ready to host the world cup.
South Africa is quite a young democracy after decades of oppression and we can not expect it to host the world cup like any other European country.That is the reason why FIFA dispelled suggestions to ban the vuvuzelas.Africa should host the showcase in a typical African way.As for the security fears,i suppose South Africa has the potential to surprise all who doubt its capabilities.South Africa hosted the rugby world cup in 1995 and nothing atrocious happened - what would make the difference this time?South African media laws are probably the best in the world - that is the reason why people read about all the murders,rapes and robberies.
However,because some people might want to prove FIFA wrong, we might see an incident similar to the Togolese debacle.
After the withdrawal of Togo from the Africa cup of nations, some pundits even suggested that the tournament should be made redundant!What a subjective view?It will be just as good as scrapping the Euro football tournament.
The greatest statesman of our generation Nelson Mandela can not be denied a chance to see the world cup in his own backyard.Hola Mzansi!Hola!
Monday, 28 December 2009
Having read Kayleigh James' blog on how language is used to control thought and behaviour,i felt encouraged to explore more on who really controls our identities.Kayleigh mentioned that religious beliefs and doctrines tend to control the way people think.And she wasn't convinced that these religious people had any control over their own thoughts.
How we perceive and make sense of each other is fundamental to all social interactions.Identities are formed and shaped through our participation and interaction with social structures such as gender, class, nationality and culture. I suppose we choose to identify with a particular identity or group.The question is how much choice and control do we have?
Personality describes qualities that a person may have,characteristics and traits that make a person unique as an individual. It is possible to describe yourself in several different ways, and the description may vary depending upon the person or group you are presenting yourself to.I am guessing that genetics play a role in the development of our personality, and we are born with some distinguishing characteristics which are more or less unchangeable. In this regard, we are born in a certain area or part of the world and it is natural to identify with the specific culture. Even though membership in a culture does not necessarily involve the desire to act in accordance with the norms associated with the identity it is difficult to resist the social environment.
During the last decades there have been considerable changes in society, and new possibilities have emerged and these are reflected in the way people identify themselves. People are flexible and they change jobs, move, travel and encounter, either personally or via media such as the internet, different cultures and religions. Globalization promotes cultural homogeneity and this could lead to a detachment of identity from the community. Furthermore, the roles for males and females have changed, for example, women are more likely to be working and it is more acceptably for males to show a caring side. All these changes and movements have made it possible for individuals to have more control over the shaping of their own identity. I consider globalization as a contributing factor in the loss of identities. People have no choice or control over the shaping of their identities. .
Experiences in childhood and adolescence lay the foundation for the development of self and identity. Young adolescents’ identities are less stable and they are more prone to be influenced by the social environment. Despite the fact that there might be a social pressure to conform and behave like the rest of the group, individuals do have a choice. Human beings have knowledge and skills to make up their own minds and deal with things in our own way. Therefore, it is possible to have a certain independence and control of the social environment, although you cannot stand apart from it.
The way one’s identity is formed is a complex process where social and individual factors are linked.I am of the opinion that individuals have some control over the shaping of their identity.In the interim changes in society and globalization has made it easier for people to reconstruct themselves. On the other hand, the individual has little control over some factors, for example, genetics and the organization of society.
Sigmund Freud believed that societies suppress people and it is for this reason that George Orwell reiterated in his novel 1984 - that societies are modelled around BIG BROTHER.