June 25, 2009
the myth and the man
As a new South African permanent resident in April of 1994, I stood in line to vote in the first multiracial elections. I was a small-time activist in Cape Town for the next ten years, so I certainly shared Breytenbach's brain fever over the "rainbow nation". The West's fight against racism and authoritarianism was supposed to find its final triumph here. I dealt with the shock of my disappointment much as Breytenbach did, by nearly going round the bend, although my disappointment went in the opposite direction. It began with facts about Mandela that I learned from his autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom (Little Brown, 1994), and progressed to knowledge of his business dealings when the local investigative magazine noseweek put me on the phone to get dirt. I found myself interviewing a business manager of Mandela's. This man had told the national and international press that the profits from the sale of lithographs Mandela had signed (but not created, in noseweek's opinion) went to a children's charity. We had proof that the money ā probably amounting to many millions of dollars ā went into a private family trust of Mandela's, from which he might be making charitable contributions (as anyone might from his own means), although there was no evidence of this that we could find. The manager finally told me that, yes, it was Mandela's money without restriction ā he could spend it all on sweets if he wanted.more from Sarah Ruden at Standpoint here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 11:40 AM | Permalink






















Comments
This should rile some folks up:
"Johnson's main argument is boldly persuasive: that the tragedy of modern Africa is not colonialism but the loss of colonialism and all the skills and investment it brought. The facts support him."
There's lots more.
Posted by: Sagredo | Jun 25, 2009 6:57:20 PM
Sagredo and interested others,
Assuming this nasty story is true, one cannot excuse and even plump up colonialism on the basis of the failings of indigenous leaders who are later comers. If you believe in autonomy for a people, then you believe in the right of that people to have heroes and leaders with feet of clay. Heroes and leaders like whites have, in other words. Never forget that corruption, and cynicism about corruption, are a key part of colonialism's long reach -- not its inevitable legacy but its usual postlude.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jun 25, 2009 7:34:46 PM
"...the tragedy of modern Africa..." is primarily the fact that black Africans haven't owned a molecule of the breathtakingly-valuable resources of that continent since the first day The Others decided to steal them.... however you prefer to spin things.
I blame gunpowder.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Jun 25, 2009 7:40:11 PM
@Steve - But why did they have gunpowder? The answer is basically luck. And if it is luck then there is no room for value judgements by either side.
Posted by: David | Jun 25, 2009 8:49:21 PM
[I had technical difficulties posting this -- admittedly overlong -- comment on the Standpoint website, so apologies if this comment turns out to be a cross-post].
I am a white South African. The tone of this article is reminiscent of the impassioned dinner-table diatribe that one often hears two glasses into the main course. There are many grains of truth-telling in the article, but I don't see any unifying insight .... the only thread holding the themes of the article together is a thread of despair.
****
Two specific points on which I disagree:
[1] that South Africa was ready for a peaceful transition to democracy, and Mandela simply managed the process as any sensible person could have. The postcolonial disasters in other countries are testimony to the alternative possibilities. If Mandela had returned from his decades in jail and decided to enact some vengeance, he could have done so. A quotation from the speech he gave in May 1994:"
We understand it still that there is no easy road to freedom.
We know it well that none of us acting alone can achieve success.
We must therefore act together as a united people, for national reconciliation, for nation building, for the birth of a new world.
Let there be justice for all.
Let there be peace for all."
[2] I simply don't agree that there is a unified cultural or psychological group in South Africa that can be usefully referred to as "Africans". The black South Africans with whom I've lived and schooled and worked have exhibited a diversity of work ethics and personal philosophies... some of them wanted to be more Western, and some of them did not, some were more traumatized by the racial tensions in their upbringing, and others less so, but none of them, when faced with the question of "How will you live?" ever responded with the mindless & melodramatic gloss that the author proposes: "As we always have -- however we can."
In rural areas, yes, traditional tribal values are still widespread. But the tribal cultural background -- and the noxious hybrid culture that has developed in areas wracked by violence and crime -- is not an inescapable mindset that rises from the African soil into the minds of people. Some widespread traditional beliefs (wrt e.g. to HIV, witchcraft, gender roles) are very unhealthy, but these aren't immutable or innate. They can be changed through conversation and experience and knowledge, through upbringing full of caring, support, openness.
****
Yes, Mandela has flaws, and yes, as transformative leaders in many other countries are, he is idolized. But this is not the reason that the country faces its present difficulties. The difficulties are not metaphysical, the cultural divides between traditional Africans and Western whites are not unbridgeable: the solutions lie in health care and education and crime control -- these same boring, practical problems that persist, acknowledged but unsolved, in developing countries around the world.
Posted by: Anon Person | Jun 26, 2009 10:12:22 PM
Post a comment