To BEE or not to BEE...

Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) is regarded as either holy or evil by South Africans, depending from which vantage point it's looked at. For non-South Africans who may not be in the know - BEE refers to affirmative action policies, which are driven first and foremost by Government through legislation, as well as through so-called BEE Charters agreed to between Government and Business (mostly by specific industry's, e.g. Tourism).


While race plays a major role in how BEE is perceived in South Africa, it would be a mistake to believe that all whites are against it and all blacks for it. BEE was always going to be a necessary evil at best and at worse reverse* discrimination (*against whites as opposed to previous discrimination against blacks). It can probably be argued that it will always be both... My own preference has been towards labelling it a 'necessary evil'. That is, BEE should be seen against the country's history of colonisation (±300 years) and formal Apartheid (±40 years), which robbed the black majority of opportunities for education and development. To address these past injustices, a degree of discrimination is needed in the present day (affirmative action).

However, about a decade of BEE has caused many to re-evaluate their stance on this thorny issue. To be fair many, myself included, had a lot of caveats regarding support for BEE / affirmative action to begin with. These now strongly come into play, given the history of BEE thus far. In short a smallish group of the (mostly) political well-connected have benefited hugely from BEE. Some black labourers benefit indirectly through union participation in BEE deals, although the empowerment effect thereof at ground roots level is questionable. The vast majority of black South Africans are not really in a stronger position to advance up the economic ladder - some even argue that most are in a worse position today.

There are a few aspects of the current BEE experience that troubles me greatly. These include:

• The small number of people actually (disproportionally) empowered by BEE, as referred to above.
  
  
• It seems that the main focus is on filling top, influential, highly paid positions, with black faces - i.e. following a top-down approach.
  
  
• The previous point suggests that the only way to empower blacks is by getting rid of whites... That is, whites can't be trusted in playing a part in the great empowerment project. It has to be driven by blacks in high positions, by extension by driving out whites currently filling those positions. This is gross generalisation on my part, but it represents at the very least a worrying perception.
  
  
• BEE in South Africa, in my view, is based too much on the redistribution of wealth rather than the creation of wealth. In other words cutting the proverbial economic pie in smaller pieces, so that everyone can get a bite - rather than baking a bigger pie. (Obviously the 'shareholding' in a bigger pie can remain in the same lily white hands, which won't help either.)
  
  
• An experience which is bothering me more and more is listening to black commentators matter-of-factly stating that black South Africans must eventually dominate business, because of the demographics of our population. There is a culture of entitlement in these pronouncements that bugs me. If I as a white person build up a family business from scratch with years of blood and tears, am I required to simply hand over a majority stake to someone else, because of his black skin colour? Why can't a family business remain exactly that, irrespective of the family's race?
  

It would be naïve to expect that after 350 years of discrimination against blacks in this country an ANC Government would not opt for fast track empowerment, as they've done. But one would hope that this will be coupled with a similarly aggressive drive to empower blacks to compete on merit, not to be mere recipients of what virtually amounts to hand-outs? I fear this has generally not been the case.

The main failing of the ANC Government in my view has been the complete failure to deliver, or at least begin to deliver, quality education at (primary and secondary) school level. The fortunate black students that make it into universities (these days a very sizable portion of university populations) are either those who were able to get into historically white schools or the exceptional few who managed to reach the bar despite attending the average black township school (the average black township school being poor to useless).


At present universities attain their high percentage of black students not because of population demographics naturally leading to it. Rather, it is manipulated by setting different standards for different race groups. The bottom line is, if you're white you have to outperform black students by a clear margin in order to make it to university. Worse, if you're black a mediocre school performance will often do. The reason for this is not that black kids are lazy or have a lower intellectual capacity. It is rather that Government fails them - mostly in the poor execution of education policy -; school principals who are either unable to manage or don't care fail them; and ill qualified, poorly motivated and often totally uncommitted teachers fail them.

The baggage of school boycotts in the Apartheid era is also haunting us today. I'm amazed at how (black) school children still feature as cannon fodder in political struggles. Whether it be protests against poor service delivery by municipalities, provincial demarcation disputes or micro issues with particular education representatives the fact is that school children should be in classrooms being equipped for their futures - not out on the streets protesting. Parents and community leaders should ensure that children don't get dragged into these matters.

Yet, businesses are pressed continuously to promote black employees, often in preference of better qualified and experienced white co-workers. How can this be, if black schools are continuously allowed to sink further and further into the gutter? It all smacks of political expediency rather than a true commitment to empowering black South Africans. If you're serious about 'BEE' you need to empower black South Africans, first and foremost through dramatically improved school education, to compete.

The litmus test for BEE lies in abolishing affirmative action and then seeing whether you're doing enough for black school education to enable black children to naturally progress in big numbers into university and careers beyond. Blacks have the ability, as do any other race, to compete. They should be allowed to do so!

I didn't really have the stomach to wander into the above topic, but a talk by Moeletsi Mbeki (the brother of our infamous President...) got me fired up. While I've read about some of M Mbeki's opinions lately, I'm not able to vouch for his general positions, as they are mostly unknown to me. However, on this issue I think he's spot on. We need more (black) commentators who come out and address this important issue. I'm just hoping that enough do so to bring real change in BEE policies before my eldest child, born a decade after 1994 'democratic revolution', matriculates in about 2023... I'm not too hopeful though.

Below follows a report on Moeletsi Mbeki's talk as featured on News24.com:

'BEE no solution to poverty'
Johannesburg - Wealth redistribution is no solution to poverty, political analyst Moeletsi Mbeki told a conference on the world economy in Johannesburg on Tuesday.

"Redistribution can actually accentuate poverty and create social conflict," he said.

"I was one of the first to oppose Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), because if they're going to redistribute wealth, who is going to get what? Where are you going to get that wealth from?"

Broad Based BEE had only benefited top ANC leaders, Mbeki said.

"It benefits the people in power, but what about the poor? BEE is more of a problem than a solution."

He suggested that the government look at wealth creation rather than "fight the ghosts of the past. The ANC expends a lot of energy with BEE in an attempt to correct the past".

The only way to go bridge the gap between rich and poor was to sort out the education system and concentrate more on the development of small and medium businesses.

"BEE stops black from becoming entrepreneurs," Mbeki said.

"Black people are not necessarily against capitalism," he said, adding that it was only the model of capitalism that the apartheid National Party had promoted that blacks did not like.

He was however unsure if the ANC could market capitalism to the electorate.

"The ANC leaders are afraid of the unions - groups like Cosatu and the SACP - they think these groups deliver a huge constituency but they don't."

He said that the ANC had been "very good" at establishing a political system and the Constitution, but had not done well in economics.

"I never expected them to because they have never run a business."

He said that at least he and his brother, President Thabo Mbeki, had worked in the family's spaza shop as children.

"But when my brother gets kicked out as head of government, you won't have anyone there who has actually managed even a spaza shop."

Slideshow: Soetwater 'refugee camp' (News24.com)

News24.com posted an online slideshow (with audio commentary) on their website today. It features Soetwater 'refugee camp', a tent compound set up on Kommetjie's Soetwater Recreation Area (Cape Peninsula / Greater Cape Town). The camp currently houses 3000 refugees with more arriving. Most of the services at the camp are currently being provided by volunteers, with donations from the public being the main source of supplies. This may change as reports suggest Government may be gearing up to establish official refugee camps.

Click on the image to view the slideshow on News24.com's website.

Govt prepares for 14 camps: South Africa: Xenophobia: News24

News24.com, an online news portal in the Naspers group of companies, posted the article below an hour ago (produced by Beeld). To read it in its original context, click on the article heading below.

This is a first for South Africa and has been called for by various groups since well before the current wave of xenophobia. In my opinion this is a major development, if it is confirmed officially off-course. I'll comment on it lower down...

Govt prepares for 14 camps
29/05/2008 08:24 - (SA)

Staff Reporters, Beeld

Cape Town - The government was to announce on Thursday that camps would be set up countrywide for the victims of xenophobic attacks.

However, the camps would not be referred to as refugee camps because of the negative connotations of such a name worldwide.

From what Beeld was able to gather, the Cabinet met until about 17:00 on Wednesday to discuss the proposed camps, among other things.

This came after a meeting on Monday between President Thabo Mbeki, the Cabinet committee which was established to deal with the matter, and provincial premiers.

Mbeki was to meet UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres in Japan on Thursday where the crisis would be discussed.

Exact details of the plan could not be confirmed officially on Wednesday, but Beeld was able to determine the following:

"Shelter camps" (perhaps with a more-acceptable name) would be announced which temporarily would provide foreigners with shelter and food in the interests of their safety, health and sanitation; There would be up to 14 of these camps countrywide - seven large and seven small ones; Foreigners would stay in the camps "for as long as necessary" - no timeframe was given; It looked as if metro councils would be approached by provinces to cordon off areas for the camps. Metro councils in Gauteng and the Western Cape - where the xenophobic attacks were the most widespread - would get camps, but not the metro councils in the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal; The number of foreigners in the country was estimated at about 51 000 on Wednesday night, of which about 28 000 were in Gauteng and 20 000 in the Western Cape; (((I assume this refers to the number of people displaced by the xenophobic violence as there are obviously many more foreigners in the country!))) It seemed as if the national government was not in favour of the UN openly helping because it considered the country to be in a position to resolve the matter itself; The Ekurhuleni metro would erect tented camps on the outskirts of Springs and Germiston, and possibly in the Kempton Park area too; and The greater Johannesburg city council already was working on plans for camps, together with the national and provincial government. At the time of going to press no comment could be obtained from the Tshwane metro council in Pretoria.

Years ago, as a student journalist, I was part of a church drama group that went to sing for FW & Marike de Klerk... :-). At the time he was still the president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela had been released from prison and negotiations for a new dispensation was well under way. We got to drink tea and enjoy snacks with the first couple in their official residence afterwards. A very strange experience! Being a young idealistic, aspiring, journalist I asked FW for his thoughts on the role of the media. He answered that he saw it as a necessary evil. I was slightly taken aback...

In the years since I've used the phrase quite often myself. It comes to mind again with the above breaking news. To spell it out: Setting up refugee camps (or whatever you elect to call them) in South Africa is a necessary evil at best. It is too late to avoid it. It is not good news.

I actually value the Government's stance up to now, i.e. that it is best for immigrants to integrate with society in general. However, it seems as if this policy was also an excuse to ignore the problem of illegal immigration. Best also not to create camps for Zimbabwe immigrants, how do you explain then some of the mind boggling claims by Thabo Mbeki that there's no crisis in Zimbabwe? For immigrants to integrate successfully into society they should have been officially recognised as immigrants or refugees. They should have been processed, i.e. given documents. This should have been done in a way that ensured local communities that foreigners living among them where there legally. And so one can go on. The list of shortcomings, policy failures, mismanagement, incompetence, corruption and neglect in regard to immigration by Government at all levels is a very very long one.

Where to from here? I fear incredible damage has been done in the last few weeks. While the occurrence of xenophobia is not entirely new in South Africa, the scale of the the recent events is such that it complicates the issue tremendously. In an ideal world politicians would talk to the relevant local communities and lay their fears to rest so that they can welcome back immigrants and they would live together happily ever after. Dream on...

We now have a bizarre new kind of Apartheid in South Africa. Us equals South Africans and them the 'illegal ones' or 'refugees'. In the short term pure humanitarian considerations dictate that camps be set up. But would you like to live in such a camp? Do you want your children to live in such a camp!? How much better would it be for these people to get out into society again and earn their keep through productive means. I suspect that the refugee-camps-by-another-name will also function as a first stop in the deportation chain ending somewhere north of our borders. While some of the deported will have doubts about returning to South Africa they will find exactly the same circumstances they fled in the first place - virtual dictatorship in Zimbabwe, anarchy in Somalia, etc. As before most of them will probably come back through the revolving door that is our borders. Deportation is not a viable long-term solution. They only kind of deportation that works is the kind that basically assists the limited amount of immigrants who want to return to their home countries in doing so.

I'm very curious to see how these camps will be managed. Will the inhabitants thereof have freedom of movement in and out of the camps? Will they be documented? Will they be assisted in finding alternative housing? Will permanent structures be built in the camps? Only time will tell, but what is sure is that South Africans cannot be critical enough in following future developments around this - it goes to the core of the values entrenched in our constitution.

Finding (good & bad) memories online

Former State President (of South Africa), PW Botha,
shakes hands with a Soweto youth - Aug 31, 1979.
(As displayed by Daylife and credited to "Beeld AP").

It's amazing what you can find on the internet, and mostly with very little effort. I followed a tag related to this blog as I was curious to see what I have posted about the particular subject ('Christian Faith'). It turned out that PW Botha's death in late 2006 was the unlikely topic of the post. In the posting titled PW Botha 'defiant to the end' I mentioned a signature photograph of Botha's historic visit to Soweto in 1979. I was nine years old at the time...

I went to Google Image Search and searched for "Soweto" and "PW Botha". The above picture was the second picture on the first page of results. Now if you were sitting in a newsroom in 1990, before the internet became what it is today, and had to find this picture you'd have your work cut out for you. I love the NET!

YouTube awards best videos of 2007

If you are reading this post outside of my blog you may not be able to view the video clips, click here to go to InsideSouthAfrica.

A favourite online resource for South African news, news24.com, featured the inclusion of a Kruger Park wildlife video, shot by American tourists on 'safari', in YouTube's collection of what its users voted the best videos of 2007. More special and some not-so-special clips complete the selection of 12 video clips - each in its own category. My pick from amongst the winners follow below. To view all 12 the videos, click this post's heading above.


Eyewitness Category


(If the video above doesn't show, it may have been removed by copyright holders..., you can view it here.)

The Kruger video, winner in the 'Eyewitness' category is indeed very special. It clearly shows what remarkable sightings await visitors to South African wilderness destinations. Obviously very few people get to see sightings quite as remarkable as that portrayed in the video. However, having said that, what makes the video special to me is that it was shot from a safari vehicle not in an exclusive private game park, but in the gem of South Africa's (public) national parks - The Kruger National Park. In the video you catch glimpses of private vehicles whose occupants clearly had the wonderful opportunity to take in exactly the same spectacle. While you are more likely to see incredible wildlife sightings up close in one of the much more expensive private reserves, those on a tighter budget are not locked-out from experiencing the wilderness and its wildlife at its most special.


Adorable Category



I'm sure this video had a lot of parents of young babies and toddlers, a group that includes me, voting for it (although I did not partake in the voting). The scene is so familiar in showing how a young baby develops a very basic and strange sense of humour. What a special moment when you first get to connect with your child in this kind of way.



Short Film Category



This video is put together very cleverly and professionally. As a short film it is obviously a challenge to deal with sometimes difficult and complex topics in the space of a few minutes. The producer succeeds in this very well. He also hides the topic of the video and trusts that his viewers will be intelligent enough to figure it out for themselves. He doesn't lecture, but creates empathy and insight through the short film. I will not give away the topic which he is dealing with - have a look for yourself. Below follows his 'director's commentary' video in which he discusses his winning entry.



The background on the video, how it was put together and with what equipment. Very interesting.


Creative Category




Human Tetris. If you've ever played the game or been hooked on it, as I was at some point in the past, you have to watch this. It won in the 'Creative' section and deservedly so. Very enjoyable.



Inspirational Category - nominee




This is a very thought provoking video. It touches on how outdated modern teaching environments and methods are, as well as how technology both enhances and blocks the acquisition of knowledge. It includes some interesting statistics and perspectives. The website flashed at the end of the video, a collaborative blog by Kansas State University students and faculty, is worth a visit for those interested in technology - especially the internet => 'Digital Ethnography'. On completing the paragraph I realised that this video was actually a nominee in the 'inspirational' category and not a winner, but I thought it deserved a mention anyway!


Politics Category




The winner in the 'politics' section. Produced by a political activism website it is a poignant reminder of what unites different world cultures and religions, as opposed to what drives them apart. It especially focuses on the need for real efforts to bring peace to the Middle East. It points out that public opinion has the power to force political leaders to change course. In some respects the video is idealistic. But that is probably a necessary element in political or social activism - the believe that change is possible. The movement behind the video is based at Avaaz.org.



Instructional Category



The Rubik's Cube was invented in 1974 but entered pop culture in the early 80's. I must have been ±13 when it took South Africa by storm as well. I remember fondly how we challenged each other to see who could solve the puzzle in the shortest possible time. Somehow I've lost the urge in the 25 years since. A younger mind is much more prone to taking up such a challenge. Having watched the video above may just have given me enough inspiration to give it another go. I don't remember really worrying about 'algorithms' 25 years ago - but it's probably because one stops thinking about those once you reach the point of solving the puzzle in seconds rather than minutes... I can't really remember. I'll have to see whether we threw away all our Rubik's Cubes...

The video is very well put together, systematic in its approach and has a vibe that only a twenty-something (or younger?) presenter could generate :-).

Barack Obama impresses with bold speech addressing racism

Barack Obama made a speech on Tuesday which should reverberate around South Africa, although most in the country is probably unaware of the drama playing itself out.

The eloquent speech on racism, with well balanced arguments was a tour de force in dealing with an issue which is as important in South Africa as it is in America. He very effectively addressed the fears and frustrations of peoples of various race groups. Obama managed to put forward arguments for addressing these by focusing on common problems rather than race, while at the same time acknowledging injustices of the past and present. His message is a unifying one, rather than the polarising style that has at times been a hallmark of our own President Mbeki, when dealing with issues of race.



It's a pity that more South Africans don't follow the American Presidential Election primaries. It is an impressive show of democracy in action. While it is most definitely prone to politics of personality rather than substance, its thoroughness eventually forces the latter to emerge. Although I still can't explain how such a system could lead to the election, and especially re-election of the current incumbent...

• For a New York Times video with transcript of the speech scrolling next to it go here.
• For a New York Times' editorial praising the speech go here.
• For Maureen Dowd's opinion go here.
• For Mhambi's take go here.
• For an interesting note on the potentially changed perception of Obama see Attie Heunis' blog post here.
  

The Sowetan's (bad) dream

In 1963 Martin Luther King gave his famous 'I have a dream' speech, a stirring vision of a day when freedom and liberation would reign in the then segregated United States.

With the celebration of Freedom Day in South Africa on April 27, The Sowetan, a newspaper mainly serving readers from Soweto, launched an ad campaign borrowing from King's speech. However, it deliberately twists the message into one of despair and black (no pun intended...) humor. Thus instead of dreaming of a day of freedom and liberation, it instead 'dreams' of dark days of murder, rape, racial injustice, crime and grime. The narrator in the ad uses the sermon-like style of Martin Luther King, with a hint of an American accent, but the dialogue and accent remains clearly recognizable as South-African. The punch line challenges the listener with a question:

"What have you done with your freedom South Africa? Don't let it go to waste. Cherish it"

Calling the ad brilliant is perhaps over the top. It's not the most original idea ever 'dreamt' up. But it is brave, a quality that one would like to associate with our news media.



So when the SABC banned the ad it just added to a growing discomfort with the public (state?) broadcaster. Surely the powers that be at the SABC have the brains and insight to understand that the Sowetan's ad does not amount to hate speech (as it implied)? What is the SABC doing to our freedom in South Africa? It seems more and more that for the SABC our freedom does not include the free flow of information?

Oh no, our big broadcasting brother will protect us against unsavory information. It is our good fortune that the SABC has a strong ideological base. It will protect all of us, who are not mature enough to do so for ourselves, against the bad bad bad (anti-revolutionary) ideas out there. Heil the SABC! Heil the ANC! Heil Mbeki! HEIL SNUKI*!

*Ok, I know Snuki wasn't necessarily involved this time round, but heil Snuki anyway...

To white or not to white, whitey?

There are many issues in contemporary South Africa that are discussed, pondered, thought and fought about. As always the topics most heatedly debated are the negative ones - crime & corruption, aids, etc. For white South Africans an issue that is rarely spoken about by name, but which often lurks underneath the surface of discussions by another name, is identity. Being white and living in Africa can cause a bit of an identity crisis. Am I 'European', 'western', 'African', etc.? I do have some strong opinions in this regards, but won't touch on those in this post.

I noticed an opinion piece by Marianne Thamm on News.24 today, dealing with one aspect of the identity issue. My wife buys the Fair Lady from time to time and Marianne has a regular column in the Magazine. Whenever the Fair Lady makes its appearance in our house, I always page to her column first. She is an extremely sharp thinker and excellent writer. Her columns dealing with contemporary matters is always worth a read. She has a way of slaughtering holy cows with wit and sarcasm. I have seldom found myself differing from her opinions and when I did it was with some discomfort... may she be onto something here?

The News.24 column, it may have been published elsewhere first, is titled White Like Me. The title alone may be interpreted as a form of sarcastic social commentary. Black Like Me is a range of beauty care products launched in the 80's (I believe). Back then it was a statement in itself, proudly proclaiming that 'black is beautiful' in a time that Apartheid (white supremacy) was the order of the day. Sarcastically stating 'White Like Me' in present day South Africa packs quite a punch. What does it mean to be 'white like me', should it mean something?

That it is in fact an emotive issue is clear in the amount of comments the relatively short column drew. It represents a small sample of the way in which the identity question is dealt with in the larger (white) society. Read Thamm's article and contribute your 2-cent's worth if you feel like it.

"Questions we must start asking to bring SA back from the brink"

A friend's blog, mhambi, mentioned an excellent article recently published in Business Day, 15 March 2007. Mhambi also posts a satirical take on the ANC's logo, have a look - it's really good.

In the article, titled rather ominously "Questions we must start asking to bring SA back from the brink", Xolela Mangcu provides a well reasoned and researched summary of how South Africa's present and past politics may be analyzed. Using a thorough intellectual approach he quotes from socio-political-philosophical works to raise interesting angles on the subject. Mangcu is executive chairman of the Platform for Public Deliberation, and a visiting scholar at the Public Intellectual Life Project at Wits University.

He quotes Alain Badiou:

"Badiou explains why political parties betray their people by first asking the question that has preoccupied many of us over the past few years: “We must ask the question that, without a doubt, constitutes the great enigma of the century. Why do the most heroic popular uprisings, the most persistent wars of liberation, the most indisputable mobilisations in the name of justice and liberty end in opaque statist constructions, wherein none of the factors that gave meaning and possibility to their historical genesis is decipherable?”

His answer is what he calls “political unbinding”. He says that political representation is a fiction through which politicians pretend to represent the interests of others."

Granted, Badiou's take is rather pessimistic. However, in South Africa we're still suffering a little from the so-called 'honeymoon syndrome'. That is there's still a lingering euphoria about our emergence from Apartheid, making criticism -especially stinging criticism- of the government seem a bit like treason. In the mean while the door is left open for corruption. Mangcu points out that Jean Francois Bayart & Co. refers to corruption as “the privatisation of public resources”. This reminds me of a recent article, mentioned in this blog, in the Financial Mail under the heading "ANC's soul for sale". What the latter article describes, a network of patronage on all levels of government, can very well be referred to as "the privatisation of public resources".

Mangcu also decries the government's stance on Zimbabwe, in which it acts very much in line with Badiou's perplexing question above. Pitched in our contemporary context Badiou could very well have asked how on earth the ANC, that fought (in effect) for human rights for all South Africa's citizens, can be so tame in it's response to Zimbabwe's atrocious treatment (including torture) of the political opposition? I touched on this in a recent post - "Robert Mugabe - credible partner for quiet diplomacy?".

My only criticism on Mangcu's article is that I would have loved a few more pages of it, it's way too short! If I get the time I'm going to dig around and see if some of his academic papers are available online. It should make for very interesting reading (click on this post's heading to read his article).

6x6=36 as demonstrated by Gibbs

The Cricket World Cup has started well for South Africa. We didn't impress much in the warm-up games but in our first official game the sparks flew. As far as South Africa's performance was concerned the match was an impressive affair with various individual's contributions worth noting. However, Herschelle Gibbs' six consecutive sixes in one over (six balls) was out of this world. He went from 32 at the start of the over to 68 at the end. Sure, the Netherlands is a minor force in world cricket and the field was relatively small. But six sixes in a row remains an incredible feat. While it is not impossible, I'd like to see any other batsman repeat that. If you haven't seen that incredible six shots, have a look below...



South Africa has been a strong contender leading up to world cups since our re-admission in 1992, after isolation brought about by Apartheid. Since that very first world cup we've been disappointed more times than I care to remember. Despite all this 2007 may just be the year. Yes, we've fizzled out many times before - but South Africans are die-hards. We will get there and this may very well be the year.

Just to emphasize why South Africa should never be underestimated I went on a nostalgic trip and unearthed two more gems from YouTube. The first is Jonty Rhodes' explosion onto the world stage in the 1992 World Cup and the second a snippet from South Africa's incredible feet in scoring 438/9 to eclipse Australia's world record score (they batted first) of 434/4 set just hours before (merely a year ago). That's a total of 872 runs in a single one day game. The video's quality is not great but it does capture the incredible tension towards the end of the game. My brother who very rarely attends games was in the stands at the invitation of a supplier at work. I'll be forever jealous of him for having missed out being there to witness that bit of history. The video starts of with Telemachus getting dismissed with the score at 423. All-rounder Andrew Hall is in the middle but the former's dismissal means that we've virtually run out of batsmen. Boucher walks onto the pitch, the perfect guy in this situation. But if another wicket falls only Ntini is left to bat, an incredible bowler but a true fast-bowler-batsman...





For more on the Wanderers game go to Wikipedia.

Dick Cheney meets Darth Vader

My sister, who works at the University of the Western Cape (UWC), recently told me about an excellent blog, constitutionally speaking. The guy behind it is a professor of law at UWC, Pierre de Vos. I've read a few of his posts and have found them most informative, well thought through and intellectually stimulating. His law expertise makes for intriguing angles on contemporary socio-political issues, especially from a constitutional viewpoint - from there the name of his blog, I suppose... His legal expertise, 'progressive' outlook (dangerous label...) and willingness to call a spade a spade makes his blog a must read in my opinion. I've added him to my list of 'other South African blogs' and subscribed to his news feed. Give his blog a look, I'm sure you may want to do the same...

In a rather trivial posting, relative to his average thought provoking entries, he yesterday featured a YouTube video that I found most entertaining (see below). One remark Pierre made in his latest posting does pack a lot of punch though. It deals with the fact that the political satire of the kind featured in the video below would be highly unusual in the current South African context. You may very well walk into a political minefield in South Africa if you did a similar piece of satire featuring a government minister, never mind the president or his deputy.

I have to admit that I felt uneasy at times watching the often hilarious clip. Some remnant of my Christian-nationalist upbringing protested at the fact that a vice-president could be ridiculed in this manner. My emotional gut reaction aside, I believe in the modern world of media spin by ruling parties the world over, this kind of satire may in fact be very necessary. The Apartheid Government got away with murder partly because of a blind respect for authority from Christian-nationalist supporters. Sadly the present government are often treated with kid gloves for the fear of being labeled unpatriotic, ant-revolutionary or -if you happen to be white- racist. We urgently need a mind shift in South Africa to realise that being outspoken in one's criticism of government is potentially more patriotic than keeping your mouth shut. In time the substance of your convictions will determine the value or otherwise of your utterances, not politically correct knee jerk reactions thereto.

Back to the video. To appreciate the video you need to be relatively up to date with American politics and more so regarding President Bush's neo-conservative ex-Halliburton-CEO Vice-President, Dick Cheney. If you're a bit ignorant on these matters have a look at the background below the video before watching it, without it you'll miss most of the humor.

UPDATE - OOPS - Comedy central pulled this clip from YouTube after my initial post. The content owners to Comedy Central's programming has forced YouTube through court action to remove all its content from the latter's servers. Thus, for the time being, this clip is inaccessible. I've tried unsuccessfully to locate the clip on Comedy Central's own website. Their site is terrible to navigate. I believe they actually got more exposure for their product on YouTube, granted minus the irritating ads... I'll try to sort this out soon!

Brief background on Dick Cheney
Dick Cheney, together with other hawkish neocons such as Donald Rumsfeld, was the main proponents of the 'case' to declare a pre-emptive war on Iraq. That is to attack Iraq, in the absence of an act of aggression from the later, based on their believe that it represented a 'clear and present danger' to American interests and lives - at least that is how they pitched it. Many of their non-American critics summed up their motives in one word: 'oil'. Others state that their model for spreading democracy through the barrel of a gun is naive and short sighted. Off-course conservative commentators hold a different view. As the war becomes ever more unpopular with the American public President George Bush relies heavily on his conservative deputy to talk up the 'progress' being made in the war. Cheney is the perfect candidate for this as he has no qualms in earnestly stating that the 'insurgency' is about to be defeated, while the majority of commentators believe that a de facto civil war is in fact raging out of control.

Cheney was involved in a hunting accident some time ago when he and some friends went duck hunting on one of the party's property. In what could only have been an 'honest to God' freak accident he managed to shoot his beloved friend in the face... Luckily the wound was not fatal or too damaging. However the American press had a field day after the White House Press Core did a very amateurish job of trying to keep the incident out of the national headlines. Accusations was made left and right - did the hunting party have the necessary hunting permits, did Cheney follow general hunting safety precautions, etc.

Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Mary Cheney actively partakes in the organisation of her father's campaign work for the Republican Party leading up to elections. The Republican Party's take on homosexuality could probably be described as something between homophobia and intolerance. In the last two national election campaigns (presidential and mid-term) the status of especially homosexual unions ('same-sex marriages') was a big issue. One state in America, Massachusetts, recently started recognizing same-sex marriages. For a limited time gay couples streamed there to get legally married. The Party took a very strong view on the matter and President Bush even threatened to seek a constitutional amendment to bar the practice. I'm under the impression that for the time being same-sex marriages has been suspended in the state although I'm stand to be corrected on this. It is in this context that Cheney has been challenged on his daughter's sexual preference. The idea of challenging him on it makes my hair stand on end, as it smacks of homophobia. However in the above context, and in the absence of Cheney distancing himself from the Party line, I grudgingly concede that it probably a necessary action. John Stewart follows a very unapologetic approach to the matter and does so very effectively.

Cheney has a heart condition. Exactly what his heart ailment is I don't know. Suffice to say that it is a definite health issue. I honestly can't find a justification for satire on that specific topic. I suppose Jon Stewart has decided that anything goes...

President Bush introduced the phrase "axis of evil" in talking up war against Iraq, with Cheney's unconditional approval. Within the context of the current Administration's love affair with Christian-conservatives describing your target for occupation as 'evil' goes a long way to motivating your base for war. I suspect this is where Darth Vader enters the picture, a messenger from 'the dark side' (evil). If you're StarWars knowledge is slightly rusted, or non-existent, you can have a look at DV's bio here.

Financial Mail - (ANC's) SOUL FOR SALE

The 19 January edition of the Financial Mail had an excellent feature dealing with the corruptive influence of relations between the African National Congress (ANC) and ANC-aligned business people (see link below). I'm afraid it's just another case of 'power corrupts', in this case it deals with the power to award state / municipal contracts.

I've previously referred to the encouraging rise of a black middle class in South Africa, helped along by Black Economic Empowerment (BEE). A corner stone of the latter is affirmative action. It is a necessary evil, which if managed poorly -as it often is- allows for the appointment of unqualified and inexperienced candidates. The pressure on companies to transform in a hurry, as well as dramatic staff changes (i.t.o. racial composition) in the civil service, have led to many such poor appointments. At its worst the incredible economic upward mobility of many affirmative action candidates has led to a culture of entitlement and crass materialism.

This culture of entitlement and materialism features strongly in the article below, although not necessarily described in those terms. Too many officials at national, provincial and municipal level seem to have adopted an ideology of the maximum-accumulation-of-wealth-at-any-cost. In its eagerness to advance BEE the top brass of both the government (cabinet and parliament) and the ANC seem to be reluctant to implement aggressive counter-corruption measures. In fact, most individuals on the ANC's National Executive Committee (NEC), cabinet ministers and their deputies have substantial business interests (personally or through their spouses), often in companies that deal with the state.

The article mentions instances where business people aligned to certain ANC officials have repeatedly won government contracts, with competing tender bids apparently locked out. Where municipalities have instituted 'independent' tender boards it has proven all too easy for politicians and officials to simply manipulate decisions by using proxies within those bodies.

In order to tackle our very serious crime problem in South Africa we need bold intervention on various levels. To my mind corruption in the civil service must be a top priority. Where financial benefit from political connections is not strictly illegal it should become so or be blocked by policy. However, many decision makers in government and the ANC probably has too much to lose.

One can only hope that the ANC's support base will in time become fed up with corruption and nepotism. In the long term I suspect that election shifts will be the most effective measure against corruption. That is, something similar to the recent US midterm election where voters punished the Republican Party not only for its conduct of the Iraq War, but also for corruption.

I'm not necessarily hoping that the ANC should be voted out of government, just sufficiently challenged for it to realise that it does not have carte blanche. As a government you ultimately have to answer to the citizens of your country - not your business buddies.

(Also see a recent posting by Mhambi: BAE and South African government corruption cuts deep)

Financial Mail - SOUL FOR SALE:

By Carol Paton

The African National Congress has traded ideals for influence as the party is corrupted by its members' lust for financial gain. The FM tracks the rot at the heart of SA's most powerful organisation.

It was a cool spring evening when an ambulance screeched to a halt outside the ANC's provincial office in Dutoitspan Road, Kimberley. Paramedics were rushing to the aid of the city's first citizen, mayor Patrick Lenyibi, who had been hit by flying teacups thrown during a brawl in the ANC offices. The first cup hit him on the head. The handle of a second lodged itself deep behind the ear after being smashed onto his head with greater force by a senior ANC member.

From several accounts, the fight, which took place in late 2005, was over a tender to supply coupons for pre paid electricity meters. The mayor is said to have implied that it would go to a group of ANC women, the member's mother included, who had already arranged to be trained to run the enterprise. But instead the tender was advertised, as it should have been, with conditions that cut his mother out of the running.

The blows were exchanged in the office of provincial secretary Neville Mompati, who strenuously denies that the argument was over a tender. Decisions over tenders should be made by neither the mayor nor the ANC but, according to the Municipal Finance Management Act, by officials in the city's tender committee. However, theory and practice are far apart.

Fights over who should get what contract are happening with growing frequency countrywide. It is a matter of embarrassment to the ANC, a party many members proudly think of in terms of its struggle legacy. That legacy is now being severely undermined, and the party seems paralysed.

The ANC, as the party in government, is centrally involved in dishing out tenders and contracts. The introduction of commercial interests is one factor that is undermining its proud political footing. Another is the "deployment" of ANC comrades to business.

This commercialisation has driven a profound change in the nature of the ANC. Once local ANC meetings were all about policies and strategies - the transformation of SA society according to the ideals the party championed for decades. Now these gatherings are frequently preoccupied with business opportunities and who should have access to them.

It's a transformation that wasn't expected. Rather than "transforming the state", as the party describes its goals in official rhetoric, the economy has transformed the ANC.

How did it begin? Trouble started for the ANC almost as soon as it took power, with squabbles over control of provincial structures. But it was only when politicians moved into the world of business that the competition for commercial opportunities began to dominate ANC dynamics. (For the complete article follow link above...)

PW Botha 'defiant to the end'

Yes, sooner or later we all have to leave this world. PW Botha's passing, see article lower down, will be greeted with mixed reactions. He was the last stalwart of Apartheid, a fierce hawkish president who ruled while South African whites were caught in the grips of a border mentality - not unlike what America is experiencing at the moment. Granted modern America is a full democracy and South Africa was not - in the 1980's only whites had the vote.

Very few will feel sad about his death. However, in the shadow of the Truth and Reconciliation process that South Africa went through, the respect with which his death is being treated is remarkable. The ruling ANC, the erstwhile Apartheid government's biggest enemy, responded with a statement which wished Botha's family "strength and comfort in this difficult time".

Botha will mostly remembered for 'what could have been'. He is famous for an important speech he made, dubbed 'The Rubicorn Speech'. In the speech he declared that South Africa has crossed the Rubicorn, implying that the country was heading down the road of reforms for good. He drove through Soweto (South Africa's biggest 'black' township) waving at excited onlookers who waved back and ran alongside his cavalcade. The majority of whites never dared to enter a township. Those who did, mostly did so as conscripted soldiers sent in to 'enforce law and order'. A signature photograph showed only Botha's white hand visible through a partially open car window with the rest of his body hidden behind darkened (probably bullet-proof) glass. Yet, that awkward reserved gesture, on the back of his Rubicorn Speech, created huge expectations. (2008 update on a similar photograph available on the internet here).

Sadly, he didn't follow through on the foundation that was laid. It should be noted that the first contact with the then still imprisoned Nelson Mandela was made on his watch, with his approval. The challenge was huge though. South Africa was isolated and its white population felt threatened from within and without. It believed that it had the blessing of God in carrying the torch of civilization into darkest Africa. The rest of the world was viewed as simply being ignorant, as not grasping the complexities that was South Africa.

However, all the potential was there for change. The Afrikaner population (white Afrikaans speakers) has changed from a not-too-educated rural farming nation to a well-educated mostly urbanised group. The 'ship of knowledge cleaving through a sea of ignorance', the mantra of the HQ Administration Building at the University of Pretoria, was having it's effect on the Afrikaner nation. Increased 'knowledge' gained through much improved education was eroding the arguments at the foundation of Apartheid.

Segregation (separate development) was looking more and more like the pure discrimination it has always been and not the noble cause it was pitched as. The idea of human rights and liberty for all was making more and more sense. Importantly, the biggest of the religious Afrikaner's churches, the Dutch Reformed Church, issued a document in 1986 entitled "Church and Society" in which it retreated from it's previous support of Apartheid. It basically concluded that there was no basis in scripture for Apartheid and that as such the church has erred in providing religious backing for it (it's against this kind of background that intellectuals in South Africa balk at the current influence Evangelicals are having on American politics).

What was desperately needed was strong, visionary, leadership. Botha was definitely a strong leader, as bold as they came (once again the similarity with American President Bush in this respect is not comforting). Importantly in that time, as with all the Apartheid leaders, he publicly proclaimed his Christian faith. He thus met the religious requirements Afrikaners was looking for. He showed promise of vision, but alas did not follow through on this.

I was busy with my 'national military service' (compulsory for white young men at the time) as a 18 year old when Botha had a stroke. On Botha's return to office a leadership battle ensued, with FW de Klerk leading the protagonists. For a short tense time everyone in South Africa held their breath - white and black. For most it was clear that Botha was leading the country down a dead-end. I was heading home on a weekend pass from the Army when our bus stopped at a road-side 'one stop' (filling station, convenience and food store). There was no radio in the bus and I was curious as the crisis seemed to be heading to a conclusion, one way or the other. I approached a black family in their car, knocked on the driver's window, and politely asked the driver if there was any news on the Botha vs. De Klerk issue. Grinning from ear to ear the driver informed me that the 'groot krokodil' (big crocodile) has resigned and de Klerk has been sweared in as president. In a very unusual moment a young white Afrikaner (boy) in his army uniform and an adult voteless black man shared excitement of what the future may hold (neither of us probably realised just how big a change was waiting down the road...)

At the time I did not fully grasp the significance of de Klerk's leadership, most South Africans were simply relieved at Botha's departure. However, de Klerk picked up Botha's spilled opportunities and set to work making something of it. The rest, as they say, is history. He re-established contact with the imprisoned Nelson Mandela, unbanned various liberation movements (including the ANC), released political prisoners (including Mandela) abolished various apartheid laws and lead the government in negotiating a largely peaceful transition to a full democracy in which all of South Africa's citizens could cast their votes.

De Klerk's visionary role is today often disputed by some commentators. They argue that he had no choice and simply acted under huge international pressure. I believe the life of PW Botha shows how flawed this argument is. Apartheid South Africa, under the leadership of hawks such as Botha, could have survived for at least another few decades. There are many examples in the international world of undemocratic strongman regimes surviving despite our much more open global world. South Africa was in desperate need of a strong leader with vision, and de Klerk was the ideal person to fulfill that role. Elaborating on Nelson Mandela's incredible contribution to achieving a democratic South Africa and then steering it down the path of reconciliation will be addressed in this column sooner or later. But de Klerk should be given his due, the pretty picture of South Africa's transition to democracy would not have existed without him - period.

For now the Groot Krokodil has taken his final bow. He has been a mixed blessing for this country. Hamba Kahle PW!

PW Botha 'defiant to the end': "Johannesburg - PW Botha, who died on Tuesday, was a finger-wagging hawk who defied the world while ruling apartheid South Africa in the turbulent and violence-wracked 1980s.

Nicknamed the 'Groot Krokodil' for his tough-talk and uncompromising stance, the feisty 90-year-old Botha continued to cock a snook at critics and remained combative to the very end.

During an interview ahead of his 90th birthday this year, Botha said South Africa would have 'gone down the drain' if it had achieved liberation in the 1960s and 1970s.

In the same interview, he said he never regarded blacks as inferior because 'many blacks and coloureds (mixed race) cooperated with us'."

Kevin Pietersen giving South African whiteys a bad name

It's a sad fact that South Africa loose thousands of very talented and skilled citizens to emigration every year. This is partly due to globalization, which makes professionals and otherwise skilled individuals globally mobile. In South Africa's case other factors that play a role include crime, affirmative action, unwillingness to live under a black government (racism), etc.

Around the time of the fall of Apartheid (1994) the term "the Chicken Run" was coined. The Chicken Run basically referred to white South Africans who were scared out of their wits by the prospect of living under black rule. The writing was on the wall for Apartheid. This had definite implications for the advantaged life that whites have enjoyed for 300 years of colonialism (Dutch & British) and 40 years of Apartheid. Many wealthy and skilled whites hastily packed their bags. Most headed for Britain, as many English speaking South Africans still have British passports. Others headed for Australia ('packing for Perth'), New Zealand and the US. At one time a bumper sticker appeared reading: "Will the last person to leave the country please switch off the lights"...

Luckily many more whiteys decided to stay put. Many English speaking South Africans have no wish to leave the country of their birth and would love nothing more than to raise their kids on African soil. Afrikaans speaking whites (mostly referred to as 'Afrikaners') find themselves in a rather unique position. A large portion of them have been living in the country for over 300 years. In that time Afrikaans evolved from Dutch, German, French, Malay and other influences to a distinctively separate language. While it is still close to Dutch and Flemish it is a language in its own right. Afrikaans culture went through a similar process of evolution and is totally separate from the original Dutch culture, as well as others which influenced its development. The simple fact is that Afrikaners cannot easily assimilate into the Dutch culture as many may believe. I for one do not feel at home in the Netherlands at all. On visits there I do find the similarities in language intriguing, but the land could not feel more foreign. Thus, Afrikaners who joined the Chicken Run tend to stand out as immigrants with a strangely different culture wherever they choose to relocate to.

This is not to say that Afrikaners can't successfully start a life outside of South Africa. Most Afrikaners have enjoyed a privileged education. The Afrikaners also has a long history of rising above difficult circumstances. Thus many Afrikaners are able to succeed, even in difficult circumstances that may be foreign to them. The issue is rather whether they will feel at home anywhere else, but in South Africa? In my mind the answer in the majority of cases is a resounding NO WAYS.

In the end the vast majority of whites chose to remain in the country, most because they would never consider leaving anyway and some because they did not have the financial means to leave. Many whites in the country have developed a extremely strong 'new South Africa' patriotism. I believe most has no longing for the 'old' South Africa whatsoever. However, an uncomfortably large number of whites still view the country through thick racist spectacles. Crime is not only an unacceptable fact of life, it is simply 'proof that blacks can't manage anything' (sic). The same goes for, admittedly huge, problems regarding school education, the beleaguered struggle against Aids, way too much corruption, etc. This last racist grouping cannot talk about these serious scourges without race entering the picture, it's like a badly prepared gravy poured over your beef. Whether you like the beef as is or not, they can be trusted to always spoil the meal by pouring the gravy of race (blacks this and that) over your meal...

One of the ironies of present day South Africa is witnessing how national sports can unite not only different races in their mutual passion, but also racist and non-racist. Few things peeve white South Africans more than having their national teams face South African born opposition. We absolutely 'hate' the likes of Clive Rathbone and Kevin Pieterson. These guys are excellent sportsmen, but how on earth can they be playing for a team other than South Africa? This country gave them only love and tender care in their formative years. Rathbone played in, and celebrated with, the victorious (South African) under 21 world cup winning rugby team. Everyone was looking forward to seeing, among others, Rathbone move on to the senior squad (the Springbok rugby team). How on earth can he pull the Australian jersey over his head to face his former compatriots and not feel like a COMPLETE FAKE, dare we say - a traitor? To add insult to injury the other half of the centre-pair is South African born as well.

However, where South African sports lovers completely loose any sympathy, not that much is left to start with, is when these fools start bad-mouthing the country that raised them and nurtured their skills. Finally, if you then have the complete lack of style or brains to give a South African crowd the middle finger you should seriously consider never touring South Africa again - ever. If you then feel aggrieved getting boo-ed by capacity crowds whenever you do something on the sport field, good or bad, then all hope is lost. You've lost the plot mate.

Archie Henderson plays to these kind of feelings in his column in News 24 (excerpt and hyperlink below). I could not agree more with his final paragraph: "But good luck to KP ((Kevin Pieterson)). He is a rare talent, he is also a real 'windgat' ((blow hole)) - and he is good for the game. But he should just stop being such a cry baby. He gives the rest of us whiteys a bad name."

'Let your bat do the talking': "Archie Henderson.
Kevin Pietersen is a modern South African tragedy.
It has less to do with South Africa's perceived unrequited love for the man, or his alleged victimisation than with his attitude towards the land of his birth. "

Reuters: Blow-ups 'make it safe'

This short article appeared in today's News24.com. I can see something like this actually taking off in South Africa, with the number of car hijackings we have. It will make for great humour as well...

Blow-ups 'make it safe': "London - He fits in a car's glove box, appears at a flick of a switch and when a woman has finished using him, she can just pull the plug and he deflates.

He's the 'Buddy on Demand', a blow-up man launched on Tuesday with the aim of making solo female motorists feel less nervous about driving at night.

According to research by the inflatable friend's creator, insurer Sheilas' Wheels, 82% of women feel safer with someone sitting in the car beside them and nearly a half don't like driving alone in the dark.

'We're not saying that an inflatable man is the only answer but we do hope it will give women extra confidence and make journeys in the dark less fearful,' said Jacky Brown, the spokesperson for Sheilas' Wheels."

Johannesburg Rises Above Its Apartheid Past - New York Times

I'm a great fan of the New York Times (NYT) - online edition. Their articles are often on the long side, but very informative. While some may be put off by the fact that the NYT definitely caters for Democrats (as in supporters of the USA's Democratic Party), it mostly provides ample exposure for various conflicting opinions on the same issue - where applicable.

As a South African, active in our tourism industry, I'm always very curious to read foreign perspectives on our product in general, or specific attractions / destinations within South Africa or the greater region (Southern Africa).

Sometimes, with some of the enquiries we get at Africa Deluxe Tours for South African tours, potential clients will clearly state that they want to avoid Johannesburg at all cost. This is due to their perceptions of it being a very dangerous destination, because of high crime levels.

Truth be told, it can indeed be a very dangerous place - especially if you don't know it. We normally recommend visitors to include Johannesburg in their itineraries (depending on what they want to get out of their travels of course), but that they make use of a reputable operator in doing so. Otherwise they may well run into trouble. The main reason for using a reputable operator, in this case, has to do with safety considerations. However, a tourist guide -if (s)he's worth his salt- will also add a lot of value in unlocking an unknown city for you. This is especially true of a destination like Soweto (part of Johannesburg), which features a culture and way of life alien to most non-African visitors.

Today's NYT includes a very well written, very comprehensive, article on visiting Johannesburg by Michael Wines. One irony in this article, is the recommended hotel at the end of it, taking into account what the writer had to say about Melrose Arch... The same goes for the Moyo Restaurant, also located in Melrose Arch. Having said that, I agree with his assessment of Melrose Arch - and at the same time agree that both the hotel and restaurant would make a worthwhile visit for most tourists. The hotel is a very funky, designer-type, establishment with off-the-wall humor in its room interiors. It will appeal to a hip crowd, definitely not your style if you prefer colonial establishments. The restaurant provides a vibey, fresh, African experience - often with live entertainment.

I agree with the author that tourists should venture out of the wealthy northern suburbs, which may feel quite familiar to western visitors. Venturing into the city centre and Soweto, once again in the company of a local tour operator / tourist guide, will provide much more unusual experiences and insights. However, don't shun the northern suburbs, as here to, there is much to learn about modern-day South Africa.

Excerpts and a link to the article follows below:

Johannesburg Rises Above Its Apartheid Past - New York Times: "TAKE the M1 freeway south, past the spas and high-end restaurants of Melrose Arch, through the leafy suburb of Houghton and past the nearby clubs and galleries of Melville. Go past all that, and past downtown's concrete towers and the booming Newtown cultural district, and get off at Rissik Street. Just a block away, in the shadow of the elevated freeway's pillars, there awaits the finest selection of porcupine skin and baboon entrails in all Africa...

...Yet many South Africans insist that it is the one city that no visitor should miss. At more than six million people, it is the biggest city in South Africa and the most transformed. Twenty years ago, much of Johannesburg was the preserve of South Africa's white minority. Today, it is a stewpot of colors and languages, the fruit not only of liberation but also of a huge influx of immigrants and refugees. Johannesburg is a place where purveyors of muti - the porcupine skins, ground herbs and baboon entrails touted as cure-alls for everything from flatulence to flagging love affairs - hawk their wares a few blocks from skyscrapers....
...A proper place to begin is the Apartheid Museum (http://www.apartheidmuseum.org/), near Soweto, a powerful series of exhibits and multimedia presentations documenting the last century's oppression. Visitors begin the journey with a pass arbitrarily labeling them white or nonwhite; inside, the concrete-and-steel space, with nooses hung from the ceiling and exhibits caged in wire or trapped behind bars, brings home apartheid's brutality with unusual force.
Soweto, a city of more than a million people, is rife with reminders of that brutality. The Hector Pieterson memorial and museum in the Orlando West neighborhood recounts the 1976 Soweto riots, the event that sounded apartheid's death knell. Orlando West is also the world's only neighborhood that housed two Nobel Peace Prize winners, Nelson Mandela and the Anglican bishop Desmond Tutu..."