Friday, November 30, 2012

Lesotho: hungry and largely forgotten as donor pledges ring hollow

The Guardian (UK)
Mark Tran
November 29, 2012.

Appeals fail to raise enough cash for food insecure country hit by late rains, poor harvests and long-term agriculture problems

Mamoliehi Tsapane rests after beating sorghum. Lesotho is facing a hunger crisis,
but donors are failing to act. Photograph: Alexander Joe/AFP/Getty Images

International donors are under pressure to provide more money for Lesotho, where 725,000 people – one-third of the population – are short of food following the worst harvest in 10 years.

Representatives from the US and the EU, including Irish Aid, are scheduled to meet in Maseru, the capital, next week to consider the lack of follow-through on pledges of aid made earlier in the year, after the UN launched an appeal for $38.5m (£24m) for September 2012 to March 2013.

Funds so far come to only $9.5m, making Lesotho the least well-funded UN appeal by a long way. The UN appeal followed an emergency declared in August by the new coalition government, led by the prime minister, Tom Thabane.

"At the beginning, donors pledged money despite emergencies in Syria, the Sahel and Gaza, but they have not come through," said Michelle Carter, country director for Care Lesotho. "It's a small country, not strategically located, so it has trouble getting the world's attention and funding."

The World Food Programme is about to give out cash vouchers worth $67 as the problem in this landlocked country surrounded by South Africa is not just a question of poor harvests but a lack of cash. In January, the WFP will start distributing food to reach about 200,000 of the most vulnerable – the elderly, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and children under five.

Lesotho has suffered a drop in agricultural production of more than 70% due to flooding, late rains and early frost. This year's crop failures follow poor harvests in 2011, making many of the country's poorest farmers even more vulnerable. In addition to the latest natural calamities, Lesotho has long-term agricultural problems: lack of access to technology and inputs, and a reduction of arable land through soil erosion by rain and overgrazing.

Most of the population live in rural areas and rely largely on subsistence farming. Normally, families sell their surplus maize for extra cash. This year, however, most had to dip into that surplus to survive. Domestic production will meet only 10% of Lesotho's cereal needs, and many cannot afford imported food.

Chronic malnutrition is already extremely high. More than one in three children under five are stunted, and the current food insecurity could increase malnutrition, especially among young children, and women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

HIV and Aids is another complicating factor. Almost a quarter of the population is HIV positive or living with Aids. The combination of low household food production and high food costs is forcing people who have Aids to make choices between buying food or life-saving medications.

Last month, Catherine Bragg, the UN assistant secretary general for humanitarian affairs, called on donors and countries in the region to strengthen their efforts to promote disaster preparedness and tackle food insecurity. She said southern Africa was facing a silent emergency as regional food production has been weakened by recurrent disasters.

In Zimbabwe, 1.6 million people are expected to be food insecure and many families are selling their livestock to cope.
*****
Comment: When I worked at think-tank salary hell in Pretoria a lot of noise was made about regional development initiatives and meeting the UN mandated millennium goals in southern Africa.
 
And even as the same hot air continues to blow in regional and continental policy terms the truth is that most African countries -just like Lesotho, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe- are precariously unbalanced by chronic disruptions in the food chain.
 
Weather disasters and climate changes are to be blamed but don't even start to ignore the veracity of political maladministration
 
In these terms South Africa has failed dismally to inspire and direct developmental change internally and in the region. 
 
In the last few weeks here in the dust bowl we have been without water for days. The taps ran dry as the municipality floundered to keep up a water supply under constant threat from climate changes and, of course, absolute bad/inept planning.
 
When the water returned to the taps the electricity went out as the same municipality struggled to upgrade its archaic current infrastructure to meet the needs of a city literally taking on more people than it can sustain. 
 
A year or so ago I talked to a man who manages a part of the sewer system around Kimberley and he told me that the sewerage system was almost a 100 years old and it could not cope with new housing developments.
 
'We are in a lot of trouble that just won't go away," he complained.
 
The fact that we are in a lot of trouble is uncontested. The cities/town all across South Africa are growing at enormous rates as people leave the rural areas and flock to urban centers looking for work or at the very least, a subsistence.
 
The flood of rural refugees is a symptom of the failure of agricultural development and policy in South Africa and the region for that matter.
 
Just last week farms in the Barkly West area - about 35 kilometers from Kimberley - were engulfed in veld fires as a result of the dry conditions, sweltering heat, and the lack of rain.
 
Several farms were destroyed as fired burned out of control. The provincial government was left floundering to explain why there is not a fire fighting strategy in place. In fact, they could not explain the lack of a strategy because there are no fire-fighters in the Northern Cape!
 
South Africans who live somewhere close to what can be considered a middle-existence may be smug about the conditions in Lesotho and Zimbabwe but the truth is that we are not that food secure.
 
In recent decades, well since the end of apartheid, South Africa has moved from a net producer of food to a net importer of food and this includes agricultural products.
 
Of course, this change is about globalization and its pressures on what is farmed and where.
 
But the reality is somewhat more stark. Agricultural production in South Africa is falling drastically behind.
 
The ANC government has spent too little time on developing new farmers and farms and too much time on wrangling on land-tenure rights. I am not saying that land-tenure issues are not important
 
What I am saying is that it matters little for overall development and food security if white farmers are pressed against land rationalization claims while the state does almost nothing about skilling a new generation of farmers to produce food.
 
In the apartheid days farming was a white preserve. That had to change. The same is true for the fact that close to 90 percent of farmland was in white hands.
 
These pressures can't be ignored. However, food production cannot be frozen by political rationalizations. As it stands now we have about 3000 farmers who produce food in a nation of more than 50 million people!
 
If anyone wonders why agricultural products are so limited and expensive in South Africa the answer lies very clearly inside of this development paradox.
 
Though the answer may be clear the crisis that it beckons hardly seems to be sinking in. No-one should be too surprised if South Africa enters into debilitating food shortages. 
 
Lesotho is not alone.
 
Something to think about the next time the taps run dry and the lights go out. 
 
Onward!

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Nidal El-Khairy on Ahmad Abu Daqqa (13) Who Was Killed by an Israeli Soldier While Playing Football in Gaza


See The Electronic Intifada article "Family mourns Gaza boy shot by Israeli forces while playing football (November, 15).

*****
Comment: May Ahmad Abu Daqqa rest in peace until that day.

Onward!

52 Leading International Figures Call for a Military Embargo on Israel

Middle East Monitor
November 28, 2012.

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
Occupied Palestine - On the eve of the International Day of Solidarity with the People of Palestine, 52 international notables issued a statement calling for "urgent ... international action towards a mandatory, comprehensive military embargo against Israel." Though directly motivated by Israel's latest war of aggression against the 1.6 million Palestinians in the occupied and besieged Gaza Strip, the statement is also a reaction to Israel's decades-old military occupation and persistent denial of the UN-sanctioned rights of the Palestinian people. Expressing horror at Israel's latest bloodbath in Gaza which claimed 160 Palestinian lives, including 34 children, the statement argues that this recurring brutality has been allowed to continue due to the impunity Israel enjoys. It highlighted the particular complicity of the US, the EU, India, Brazil and South Korea, as Israel's key military partners and enablers.

The statement signed by Nobel Peace laureates Mairead Maguire and Adolfo Perez Esquível, former Pink Floyd front man Roger Waters, Directors Mike Leigh and Ken Loach, Pulitzer Prize winner Alice Walker, international best-seller Naomi Klein and co-drafter of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Holocaust survivor Stéphane Hessel, among others, adds that "Israel's attempt to justify this kind of illegal use of belligerent and disproportionate military force as "self-defence" does not stand up to legal - or moral - scrutiny, as states cannot invoke self-defence for acts that serve to defend an unlawful situation which they have created in the first place."

This appeal echoes the Palestinian civil society call for a military embargo on Israel issued last year and draws parallels to the effective action taken against apartheid South Africa as a practical means to pressure Israel to fall in line with international law.

The full text of the Statement follows.

Now is the time for a military embargo on Israel!

"For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others." --Nelson Mandela

Horrified at the latest round of Israeli aggression against the 1.5 million Palestinians in the besieged and occupied Gaza Strip and conscious of the impunity that has enabled this new chapter in Israel's decades-old violations of international law and Palestinian rights, we believe there is an urgent need for international action towards a mandatory, comprehensive military embargo against Israel. Such a measure has been subject to several UN resolutions1 and is similar to the arms embargo imposed against apartheid South Africa in the past.

Israel's unchecked belligerence and persistent denial of basic human rights and self-determination to the Palestinian people call for a concerted effort by international civil society to force world governments to end the links of complicity. This impunity has allowed Israel to continue its occupation, colonization and denial of Palestinian refugees their UN-sanctioned rights.

While the United States has been the largest sponsor of Israel, supplying billions of dollars of advanced military hardware every year, the role of the European Union must not go unnoticed, in particular its hefty subsidies to Israel's military complex through its research programs. Similarly, the growing military ties between Israel and the emerging economies of Brazil, India and South Korea are unconscionable given their nominal support for Palestinian freedom.

Military ties with Israel have fueled relentless acts of aggression. Israel continues to entrench its subjugation of Palestinians while provoking or initiating armed conflict with its neighbors in the region.

Israel's attempt to justify this kind of illegal use of belligerent and disproportionate military force as "self-defence" does not stand up to legal - or moral - scrutiny, as states cannot invoke self-defence for acts that serve to defend an unlawful situation which they have created in the first place2.

We therefore support the call from Palestinian civil society for an urgent and comprehensive military embargo on Israel as an effective, non-violent measure to stop Israel's wars and repression and to bring about Israel's compliance with its obligations under international law. This is now a moral and legal imperative to achieve a just and comprehensive peace.

Contact: Zaid Shuaibi, mobile: 0599.830.322

1 See, for example UN General Assembly Resolution 3414 (1975): "[the UNGA] Requests all states to desist from supplying Israel with any military or economic aid as long as it continues to occupy Arab territories and deny the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people". http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43376#.UKEIxYdyGSo
2 According to the basic tenet of international law, ex injuria non oritur ius (a legal right or entitlement cannot arise from an unlawful act ) http://www.definitions.uslegal.com/e/ex-injuria-jus-non-oritur/

Initial List of Signatories (alphabetical order):  

Udi Aloni, filmmaker, Israel
Anthony Arnove, editor and writer, US
Etienne Balibar, academic, France
Robert Ballagh, artist and president of the Ireland Institute for Historical and Cultural Studies, Ireland
Walden Bello, academic, author and member of Senate, Philippines
Shyam Benegal, director and screenwriter, India
John Berger, author, critic, UK
Howard Brenton, playwright and screenwriter, UK
Judith Butler, academic, United States
Clayborne Carson, Director, Martin Luther King, Jr. Research & Education Institute, Stanford University, USA
Noam Chomsky, academic, USA
Caryl Churchill, dramatist, UK
Angela Davis, scholar and author, US
Raymond Deane, composer, Ireland
Danilo Dolci, sociologist, Italy
John Dugard, professor of international law, South Africa
Felim Egan, artist, Ireland
Adolfo Perez Esquível, Nobel Peace Laureate 1980, Argentina
Dror Feiler, musician and artist, Sweden
Don Andrea Gallo, presbyter, Italy
Charles Glass, journalist, US
Margherita Hack, astrophysicist, Italy
Denis J. Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary-General (1994-98), Ireland
Stéphane Hessel, diplomat, Holocaust survivor and co-author of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, France
Tor B Jørgensen, Bishop, Norway
Christian Juhl, member of Parliament, Denmark
Ronnie Kasrils, politician, South Africa
Aki Kaurismäki, screenwriter and film director, Finland
Marcel Khalife, musician, Lebanon
Naomi Klein, writer and activist, Canada
Paul Laverty, filmmaker, UK
Taeho Lee, Secretary General, People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, South Korea
Ken Loach, filmmaker, UK
Vibeke Løkkeberg, actress and director, Norway
Mike Leigh OBE, Director, UK (Palm D'Or 1996)
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond, academic, France
Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate 1976, Ireland 
Michael Mansfield, lawyer, UK
Miriam Margolyes, actress, UK
Cynthia McKinney, politician, United States
Saeed Mirza, filmmaker, India
Luisa Morgantini, former president of the European Parliament
Bjørnar Moxnes, member of Oslo city council
Suzanne Osten, writer and director, Sweden
Nurit Peled, professor of language, Israel
John Pilger, journalist, author, filmmaker, Australia
Ahdaf Soueif, writer, Egypt/UK
Alice Walker, author, US
Roger Waters, musician, UK
John Williams, musician, UK
Vincenzo Vita, senator, Italy
Slavoj Zizek, philosopher, Slovenia

*****
Onward!

Glen Ford: Stevie Wonder Disgraces Himself with Concert for Israeli Military

A Black Agenda Radio commentary
November 27, 2012.

 “One of Black America’s most beloved artists has signed, sealed and delivered his vast talents in service to the murderous military of a racist, criminal regime.” 

Say it ain’t so, Stevie Wonder. The music superstar is lending his name and talents to one of the most unworthy causes in the world: a salute to the Israeli Defense Forces, in Los Angeles, on December 6. Stevie Wonder will help raise millions for an Israeli war machine that is already funded by U.S. taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars a year. It is a shame and a disgrace that one of Black America’s most beloved artists has signed, sealed and delivered his vast talents in service to the murderous military of a racist, criminal regime. It’s an even bigger shame that there will likely be no punishment for Stevie Wonder from his many fans, in this, the Age of Obama.

Even a generation ago, in the 1980s, Stevie Wonder could not have expected immunity from mass condemnation for helping throw a party for a racist government – for any amount of money. Back in 1985, the South African regime tried to blunt the global anti-apartheid movement by inviting American entertainers of all races to perform at Sun City, the white regime’s version of Las Vegas. Sun City was built in Bophuthatswana, a poverty-stricken black bantustan. Lots of U.S. entertainers, including some Black ones, allowed themselves to be bought off by the white regime’s deep pockets. These included Tina Turner, The O’Jays, Dionne Warwick and Ray Charles. Famously, while Blacks outside the Sun City venue loudly protested his appearance, Ray Charles ostentatiously patted his back pocket, signaling that he was all about the money.

Other entertainers came together under the banner of Artists United Against Apartheid, to shame those that sold themselves to racists. Little Steven Van Zandt brought together 50 artists to record “I ain’t gonna play Sun City,” which was also made into an award-winning video. The cast included RUN DMC, Jimmy Cliff, George Clinton, Afrika Bambaataa, Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, Grandmaster Melle Mel, Bobbie Womack, Kurtis Blow…and those are just some of the Black ones.

“Entertainers came together under the banner of Artists United Against Apartheid, to shame those that sold themselves to racists.”

Funds raised from “I ain’t gonna play Sun City” went to a host of anti-apartheid organizations around the world, including Washington-based TransAfrica and the American Committee on Africa.

Sun City still exists as a tourist attraction in Black-ruled South Africa. The Black population that had been forced out of their homes to make room for the resort were given back title to their land.

Stevie Wonder, himself, recorded a song condemning apartheid. Titled, “It’s Wrong (Apartheid),” the song includes these lyrics directed toward the white leaders of South Africa.

“The pain you cause in God's name
Points only to yourself to blame
For the negative karma you will be receiving…”

By selling his good name and great talents to the Israeli Defense Forces, Stevie Wonder is contributing to Israeli apartheid – a system that some describe as even worse than that practiced by the white South African regime. Decent men and women seek to boycott and isolate Israel and its military, while Stevie Wonder helps it throw a party. In his own words, Stevie is earning himself some very “negative karma.”

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com

___________________

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.
___________________

Comment: And we are not free.

Onward!

UPDATE (November 29: 1:47pm SA): A news report says Stevie Wonder withdraws from headlining the scheduled concert.

A press statement from him is forthcoming.  It will be interesting to hear what he has to say.

We should not forget that other major artists have recently performed in Israel. Lady Gaga (2009), Rihanna (May 2010) and Madonna (2012) come to mind.  I also remember Elton John (who played in apartheid South Africa), Paul McCartney and Macy Gray. 

These folks are despicable.  Which brings me to a few others so silent on the atrocities in Israel.

Where are the self-styled African saviors?  I am speaking about Bob Geldof and Bono, specifically.  Do they not see the parallels?

And what about Bruce Springsteen?  You may remember that he was among the artists who called for a boycott of Sun City and he appeared alongside Little Steven in the“I ain’t gonna play Sun City" video.

Has his love for Obomber removed his humanity?

There are others, of course.  You call it.

Obomber: Yes We Kill

"It isn’t clear at all how Obama or any other American president can be thought of as the lesser of two evils when he publicly gives the go ahead for slaughter. No matter how reluctant American presidents seem to be in endorsing periodic Israeli killing sprees, Israel would not be able to act without American arms and money.

The carnage, the broken bodies, and the dead children can all be laid at America’s door. The United States is the world’s only super power and the perpetrator of this crime is America’s friend. Perhaps there will be no more silly questions about why “they” hate us. It isn’t because they don’t want democracy or hate our way of life. They hate us because we keep killing their people. “They” don’t see anything lesser about our evil."
Margaret Kimberley, "Freedom Rider: American Guilt in Gaza" (Black Agenda Report, November 21).

Onward!

Friday, November 23, 2012

Saudi Arabia Implements Electronic Tracking System for Women

The Raw Story
By Agence France-Presse
November 22, 2012.

RIYADH — Denied the right to travel without consent from their male guardians and banned from driving, women in Saudi Arabia are now monitored by an electronic system that tracks any cross-border movements.

Since last week, Saudi women’s male guardians began receiving text messages on their phones informing them when women under their custody leave the country, even if they are travelling together.

Manal al-Sherif, who became the symbol of a campaign launched last year urging Saudi women to defy a driving ban, began spreading the information on Twitter, after she was alerted by a couple.

The husband, who was travelling with his wife, received a text message from the immigration authorities informing him that his wife had left the international airport in Riyadh.

“The authorities are using technology to monitor women,” said columnist Badriya al-Bishr, who criticised the “state of slavery under which women are held” in the ultra-conservative kingdom.

Women are not allowed to leave the kingdom without permission from their male guardian, who must give his consent by signing what is known as the “yellow sheet” at the airport or border.

The move by the Saudi authorities was swiftly condemned on social network Twitter — a rare bubble of freedom for millions in the kingdom — with critics mocking the decision.

“Hello Taliban, herewith some tips from the Saudi e-government!” read one post.

“Why don’t you cuff your women with tracking ankle bracelets too?” wrote Israa.

“Why don’t we just install a microchip into our women to track them around?” joked another.

“If I need an SMS to let me know my wife is leaving Saudi Arabia, then I’m either married to the wrong woman or need a psychiatrist,” tweeted Hisham.

“This is technology used to serve backwardness in order to keep women imprisoned,” said Bishr, the columnist.

“It would have been better for the government to busy itself with finding a solution for women subjected to domestic violence” than track their movements into and out of the country.

Saudi Arabia applies a strict interpretation of sharia, or Islamic law, and is the only country in the world where women are not allowed to drive.

In June 2011, female activists launched a campaign to defy the ban, with many arrested for doing so and forced to sign a pledge they will never drive again.

No law specifically forbids women in Saudi Arabia from driving, but the interior minister formally banned them after 47 women were arrested and punished after demonstrating in cars in November 1990.

Last year, King Abdullah — a cautious reformer — granted women the right to vote and run in the 2015 municipal elections, a historic first for the country.

In January, the 89-year-old monarch appointed Sheikh Abdullatif Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, a moderate, to head the notorious religious police commission, which enforces the kingdom’s severe version of sharia law.

Following his appointment, Sheikh banned members of the commission from harassing Saudi women over their behaviour and attire, raising hopes a more lenient force will ease draconian social constraints in the country.

But the kingdom’s “religious establishment” is still to blame for the discrimination of women in Saudi Arabia, says liberal activist Suad Shemmari.

“Saudi women are treated as minors throughout their lives even if they hold high positions,” said Shemmari, who believes “there can never be reform in the kingdom without changing the status of women and treating them” as equals to men.

But that seems a very long way off.

The kingdom enforces strict rules governing mixing between the sexes, while women are forced to wear a veil and a black cloak, or abaya, that covers them from head to toe except for their hands and faces.

The many restrictions on women have led to high rates of female unemployment, officially estimated at around 30 percent.

In October, local media published a justice ministry directive allowing all women lawyers who have a law degree and who have spent at least three years working in a lawyer’s office to plead cases in court.

But the ruling, which was to take effect this month, has not been implemented.

*****
Comment: Saudi Arabia is the darling stooge of the US and its western attachments so it is unlikely Killary Clinton or the equally vile Susan Rice will be standing up for the rights of women in that delusional cesspool of a monarchy.

In the world occupied by Killary and Rice the rights of women are exempted by the practice of empire.

And we are not free.

Onward!

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Myles Hoenig: Israel Is Not Jewish

Dissident Voice
November 21, 2012.

In 1982 I attended an international teachers’ Summer Institute over a period of eight weeks. It so happened to have fallen right in the middle of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. The teachers were from all continents and of all faiths. Like the Director and myself, there was a Jewish contingency of teachers. The participants were East and West Europeans, Pakistanis, Africans, and there were Palestinians. Who amongst us really understood what a Palestinian was? The Sabra and Shatila massacres were to follow just a few short months later. As I spoke with the Director, the shame and embarrassment we both felt were palpable, and we were very clear to all who inquired that Israel did not represent us.

Nearly thirty years later Jews with a conscience are feeling the same. Only this time we are including extreme anger. The hijacking of Jewish ethos by murderous psychopaths in Israel, and their counterparts in the US, is unbearable. Although I can’t exactly say that I was raised in the most liberal of families in America, where racial and religious diversity were an asset, there was something there that taught us deep down that ‘never again’ means that for all people. When the most persecuted ethnic group outside of the Roma in Europe mimic their very tormentors regarding other people’s lives, one must take a stand and be heard.

The guilt trip that the enablers, like AIPAC and Christian and Jewish Zionists, lay on most Americans is masterful. Obama, the Congress, the media, academia all tremble at the very thought that just expressing an ounce of humanism would bring down the walls of Jericho on their careers. Many progressive pundits had hopes that this past election proved how little power AIPAC has now that it lost every race it slithered and slandered its way through. How short lived that was.

One can be blind to human suffering and play the geopolitical card. Israel is the West’s colonial outpost in a region of the world where its natural resources are coveted by imperial and capitalist powers. It doesn’t matter that Israel calls itself democratic and that the United States’ other allies in the region are oppressive and repressive to its own citizens. In the world of the 1%, human suffering barely rates as a line item on a spread sheet.

The extent of gross human rights violations in Gaza has certainly reached Nazi-like proportion. The enormity of collective punishment in Gaza equals the horrors of the Warsaw Ghetto. Rockets fired into Israel proper that certainly cause terror amongst the inhabitants but does so little damage with such few casualties is being met with F-16 bombardments of Gaza neighborhoods. Firing indiscriminately into neighborhoods from the air is reminiscent of Guernica, where the Luftwaffe practiced aerial bombardment on a civilian population.

It is time to stop being afraid to equate Israel with the Nazis. Are they even Jewish? Nowhere in the Talmud is it taught that when your home is destroyed it is your right to take another’s and put them out. Yet the ethnic cleansing of Palestine from pre-Israeli statehood to the present stands as a stark contrast to what it is to be Jewish. Targeting women and children, families, water towers and other forms of infrastructure, is sheer barbarism. The brute racism by Israel’s leading figures, as supported by opinion polls of its people, can only be compared with Grand Dragons and neo-Nazis.

It is time for all people of conscience, especially Jews, to stand up and put a stop to the practices of such an insane country.

*****
Comment: Somewhere around a dinner table in Florida a few months ago a close friend looked at me in earnest and said: "I read your blog from time to time and grin and bear.  It is hard for a Jew to read you most times."

I was not surprised by his honest protest.  We go way back and I would not question his love for humanity and respect for difference and human rights no matter what.

"The war against Palestinians is not about being Jewish.  If the Palestinians were Jews I would be saying the same things.  Israel does not have the right to use its religion and the history of the holocaust and the charge of antisemitism to oppress Palestinians.  The war on Palestine is not about religion.  It is a racist colonial war and I'm surprised that you are not removing your consent," I replied.

"You probably right but it is hard to see it so clinically.  Most Jews can't just remove the place of Israel inside of Judaism," he said before we moved the discussion.

I expect that it is hard for any Jew to read strong criticisms of Israel and its racist Zionist practices.  But the greater principle is not about sullying Judaism, it is about standing for the right of Palestinians to live peacefully.

The state of Israel in this context is at odds with Judaism.

Onward!

Monday, November 19, 2012

Ariel Sharon’s son says “flatten all of Gaza”

Salon
Natasha Lennard
November 19, 2012.

Former Israeli P.M.'s son draws ire for incendiary JPost op-ed, which would see Gaza go the way of Hiroshima 

Smoke rises after an Israeli forces strike in Gaza City, Sunday, 
 (AP Photo/Bernat Armangue)

In one of the most incendiary op-eds on the current Gaza crisis, Gilad Sharon, son of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, wrote in the Jerusalem Post that Israel should “Flatten all of Gaza.”

Sharon, whose father ordered a withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, called for the blockaded Palestinian region to be annihilated or re-occupied by Israeli troops.

“There should be no electricity in Gaza, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing. Then they’d really call for a ceasefire,” he wrote. “We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.”

Placing all blame for the current conflict on the people of Gaza, Sharon — a columnist for Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth and a major in the IDF reserves — suggests that Palestinians in the region chose and deserve a painful fate, essentially endorsing civilian deaths:
To prevent harm to innocent civilians in Gaza will ultimately lead to harming the truly innocent: the residents of southern Israel. The residents of Gaza are not innocent, they elected Hamas. The Gazans aren’t hostages; they chose this freely, and must live with the consequences.
Sharon’s opinion here stands in stark contrast to the analysis which sees Hamas’ rise to power in Gaza as having little to do with Palestinian “choice” in any sort of democratic sense.  As Taghreed El-Khodary, a Palestinian journalist and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholar, told me in 2010, “Hamas is the result of a failure of [Israel's] policies, and of the failure of the international community to impose a fair policy for the Palestinians.”

The violence of Sharon’s suggestions have brought criticism on the Jerusalem Post, even from supporters of Israel. The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, for example, decried Sharon’s article on Twitter:
Anti-racism advocate Tim Jacob Wise commented that Sharon’s argument is unabashedly racist in that it explicitly values Jewish life above Arab life. He noted on Twitter, “Why did JPost publish Gilad Sharon’s horrible, racist call to kill innocent Arabs to protect ‘truly innocent’ Jews?”

The New Inquiry blogger Aarob Bady took note of the racism underpinning Sharon’s line urging Israel to project “A Tarzan-like cry that lets the entire jungle know in no uncertain terms just who won, and just who was defeated.” In a previous essay written without the Gaza conflict in mind, Bady pointed out how Tarzan can be read as a colonial racist image — the “white-skinned Übermensch soaring above Africa” He noted that, coincidentally, Edgar Rice Burroughs started writing his first Tarzan novel a month after the first use of aerial bombardment against “primitive tribes” in North Africa. As such, Sharon’s invocation of Tarzan in his article is deeply, darkly appropriate.

Although Sharon has no role in Israeli policy making, his comments do not differ dramatically from those of Israel’s deputy P.M., Eli Yishai, who said on the weekend, according to Haaretz, that “We must blow Gaza back to the Middle Ages destroying all the infrastructure including roads and water.”

*****
Comment:  Both Gilad Sharon and Eli Yishai sound exactly like the racist Nazis that they are - but then again Israel is nothing more than a racist Nazi-like state so no-one should really be surprised that such vile hatred is published in the Jerusalem Post and echoed among high-ranking politicos.

STOP THE WAR ON GAZA AND FREE PALESTINE !!!

Onward!

Percy Mabandu: Anything but African will do for us in SA

City Press
Percy Mabandu: Dashiki Dialogues
November 19, 2012.

I contend that South African darkies are generally a xenophobic and self-hating lot. Bear with me, this is a sad realisation on my part.

It had to take an event connected to former state president ­Nelson Mandela for me to arrive at this unfortunate conclusion.

Ironically, it came wrapped up in the name of a man who, by the way, has been a symbol of all that made us an inclusive rainbow nation.

It came to me last week as the new Madiba banknotes came into circulation across the nation.

See article on new notes at IOL (Credit)
 I observed all sorts of responses as South Africans from all walks of life declared their impressions and dissatisfactions with the new money.

I listened with amazement as shoppers complained that the new notes were ugly and looked, as they put it, “like it was from some African country”.

I remember being taken aback by the above statement. Aren’t we some African country? I wondered why it was undesirable to look like “some African country”.

I guess it wouldn’t have been a problem if it looked like it was from the US, Asia or a European country.

Anything but African, ­anything but what we are will do.

This objection to the notes’ ­Africanness is not an isolated thing in the SouthAfrican psyche, though, especially among the wounded lot of black ­people.

It is similar to how darkies are able to insult each other with ­references to their skin.

The verdict being passed by a darkie on another darkie makes it less socially controversial, though I think it should be more controversial.

The same thing can explain why the so-called xenophobic attacks of 2008 tended to be concentrated in areas characterised not only by high levels of poverty, bad municipal service delivery and incompetent community leadership that failed to follow up on the warning signs of these outbursts, but were specifically committed against African immigrants by local Africans.

The poor in Pretoria West were not chasing ­foreigners away, meanwhile, the destitute in Atteridgeville were burning Mozambicans.

If the new banknotes were being disparaged for not being inclusive, like I read one blogger saying, for a more inclusive spread, I would understand.

They argued that perhaps it would have been fair to feature some kind of struggle big five, ­including Madiba himself, Steve Biko, Oliver Tambo, Walter Sisulu and Robert Sobukwe, for instance.

This could have gone a long way to give other struggle icons a space under the rainbow.

The move would have transcended what is looking like a Madiba brand overkill and the old leader’s cultish deification.

Only the popular complaints aren’t going there, they are an ­anti-African dialogue draped in a self-hating ­dashiki.  (Follow me on Twitter @Percy_Mabandu)

*****
Comment: It is true that many black South Africans are self-hating (it is a by product of racism). 

That aside, I posted this story because it reminds me of an incident that happened today on a farm where I was buying grass (not the kind you smoke but the kind that becomes a lawn) and having it loaded onto my bakkie (pick-up truck).

The foreman was a particularly friendly man who helped me load near a ton of grass for a garden renovation project I have been working on for the moms.

He just happened to be black and spoke Afrikaans to me which is very common in the Northern Cape.

When I got to paying him I pulled out a new Mandela note and he looked at it and smiled shaking his head.

"Know what a white man who loaded grass today said when he handed me a Mandela note," he asked me in Afrikaans.

I shook my head and before I could say anything he said: "He asked me if I new why the paper felt thicker than all the other money we had before and when I said I did not know he said it was because of Mandela's thick lips."  (Thick lips in Afrikaans is 'dik lippe')

There we stood.  Two grown men two decades into the post-apartheid era.  Both of us absolutely disgusted that anyone, especially a white man, would say such a racist thing and think it was funny.

And we are not free.

Onward!

Ps.  Before I sign off here let me assure my folks in the US (where most readers of this blog reside) that it is quite common to hear black folk refer to themselves as darkies.  It does not carry the same racist connotations as it does stateside or in Britain for that matter.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

'I Benefited from Apartheid' T-shirt Sparks South African Race Row

The Guardian (UK)
David Smith
November 16, 2012.

T-shirt by film-maker Roger Young polarises online commenters, with some praising gesture and others defending colonialism

The 'I benefited from apartheid' T-shirts have sharply divided opinion in South Africa, where black workers earn six times less than their white counterparts.

A throwaway remark, a four-word statement and 40 T-shirts. That was all it took to trigger a vicious debate about guilt, responsibility and race that has revealed South Africans at their best – and their worst.

It came about when Roger Young, a film-maker and writer, was discussing a recent controversy about a supermarket with job vacancies that targeted black recruits, prompting a white outcry. "I said to a friend: "I'm going to get all these people a T-shirt saying, 'I benefited from apartheid', because they simply don't understand," he recalled.

The friend took him at his word and together they printed 10 such T-shirts and displayed them in an art exhibition under a sign which said: "Free T-shirts, whites only." They were gone in five minutes, so 30 more were produced and sold not for profit.

Some praised the gesture as honest and courageous in a country that, despite its official aspiration to non-racialism, is still steeped in the legacy of apartheid 18 years on – recent census figures showed that black workers earn six times less than their white counterparts. Others, however, unleashed a tirade of inflammatory criticism and personal abuse that suggested attitudes no less stagnant.

"I tell you who benefited from apartheid, it was blacks," wrote Facebook user Margarita Barnard. "I wish blacks would give whites apartheid. And I will tell you why I say this. Whites came to a country where there was nothing, just some black tribes living in mud huts killing each other. No roads no infrastructure no South Africa even. Blacks were always dying from famines when there were droughts, from tsetse fly [sleeping sickness], from yellow fever, malaria, name it they died in droves."

She continued: "They had no doctors, no writing, no schools no hospitals no roads, and worst of all and something which probably cause more deaths than the rest, no sewage system. Whites came and provided all those at the expense of whites, white know how gave blacks everything they take for granted today. Like clothes, pens, computers, everything of a billion things it needs to create a civilization. BUT whites couldn't civilise them, so apartheid was necessary to keep whites alive."

Another objector, Francois DeWet, posted: "Get me a dictionary or something that shows me how black Africans could be taught in their own languages subjects like maths, science and biology. Simple, you cannot teach in a language that does not have the terminology to do so. We didn't place restrictions on the development of their languages and simply had to find another way to give them a start in live. So, alternative mediums were introduced to accommodate the lack of terminology, and they went apeshit!!"

Alan Marsden wrote: "Is there a punchline to this joke? The fact that like all colonial powers we found a race entrenched in the iron age and lifted them out of it with technology, medicine and education does not count? ... No, I don't feel guilty. In fact I am well annoyed that what we built has gone to wrack and ruin in incapable hands (allegedly the fault of apartheid, even though most of Africa STILL live in the iron age, and apparently like it)."

Such was the hostility on one website that Young's collaborator, Leonard Shapiro, was moved to comment: "It is very seldom that I come across a chat room with so many people full of bitterness and fear."

Young, 40, has also been dismayed by the backlash that has included hate mail, mostly from South African migrants in Britain or Australia. "It's been quite rough," he said. "There was a guy in the UK saying 'You don't know what you're talking about and all the people are going to die.' I got conspiracies on Facebook saying the government is collaborating with China to carry out a white genocide.

"The comments have said the time for white guilt is over. I don't think guilt is helpful but it's really not what this is about. For me it's an economic issue."

He refuses to believe, however, that his spontaneous campaign has exposed something ugly in a generic white psyche. "I think it's a small but vocal minority. You've got people up against the wall who don't understand what's happening."

But he warned: "There are people who say, 'I lived under apartheid but I didn't support it.' I think we are looking in some communities at a form of denialism down the road. Denialism is a big danger in the future."

White identity in post-apartheid South Africa is the subject of books, public debates and cartoons such as Jonathan Shapiro's Whites who never benefitted from apartheid – a blank space. The political satirist, who works under the name Zapiro, said: "It evoked many vindictive and nasty responses from white people. I think it scratched a wound that is still open. There are some white people who still don't quite understand how brutal a transition we could have had, and how brutal a transition other countries have had."

Zapiro welcomed the T-shirt initiative. "Every white person, no matter how committed to the anti-apartheid struggle, benefited from apartheid," he said. "Anything that shows some people are aware of how much we benefited would be good."

*****
Comment: If you read just about any forum where white South Africans comment on race and racism you are likely to find views that are truly despicable to the extent that they are steeped in racist denial and just plain ignorance.

I think the nonsense that whites are made to feel guilty by any discussion of what apartheid was and what its legacy today is a result of the character of the transition from white to majority rule.

Mandela and company are in large part to be blamed for the nature of the transition from apartheid.  Twenty-five or so years ago the movement toward abandoning apartheid carried with it the manufactured sense that confronting the past had to be a political process.

It is out of this myopic view that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) set aside to find a truth about the past inside of a manifest pathway toward reconcilement.

In effect the TRC was a manner of asserting a state-centric logic about the past and its future implications. State succession was the primary reason for avoiding a larger confrontation - in other words the transition was driven by political expediency.

What came out of the TRC was an uneven and incomplete confrontation. A few small players here and there were implicated for apartheid atrocities and in keeping with the United Nations position, the TRC defined apartheid as a crime against humanity.

All good and well but why are we still stuck here.

We are stuck here because there needs to be a larger confrontation and one that must be framed in the national life of what it means to be a South African.

As much as this is a question of what makes up the character of a South African it is also a question aimed to hold all South Africans responsible for knowing where we come from.

The vast majority of whites - and the same is true for better off coloureds and Indians - are in denial about what apartheid means to the masses of impoverished black Africans.

For these folks it is more convenient to trot out all the wrongdoings of the ANC government and to blame the President and his cabinet for the structural inequities that persist.

Though there is ample reason to hold the current government responsible for service delivery issues, corruption, and infrustructural decay, the truth about South Africa's precarious condition is largely defined by hundreds of years of racist subjugation.

Its further precariousness is characterized by its marginality in the global scheme of power (both economic and political), but this is not a unique position that can be conveniently uncoupled from the racial character of global capitalism anyway.

In these terms it is necessary for all South Africans to think about what it means to be South African; our privileges and responsibilities.

This T-shirt row is but momentary theater. But it does point to a larger ill in the nation's psyche - if we can even be called a nation.

And this is my point overall, there really is nothing else that binds South Africans together other than our oppressive past.

We are South African because of colonialism and we are a post-apartheid state because of apartheid.

Apartheid continues under a different guise and it is necessary for a fuller confrontation that also takes into consideration the socio-psychological impairment, or disfigurement, of racism

Inside of that continuum whites of all generations have a need, and a pressing one, to confront their past and to ask tough structural questions about what the substance of whiteness means in the post nation.

The same is true for varying reasons for other populations groups.

This confrontation cannot happen inside the halls of the state but it must be promoted as an ongoing process of nation building nonetheless.

As of this writing any conversation about whites benefiting from apartheid boils down to accusations about black incompetence and thievery and it gets plain ugly and absolutely racist (particularly online where a large number of white expats troll South African news forums and offer racist comments of the character of blackness and the failure of the post-apartheid state).

Take a look at the comments underneath this coverage of the T-shirt saga at South Africa's own Mail & Guardian ("Get apartheid on your chest", November 16).  If you thought we have moved ahead - be prepared to be dismayed.

Leonard Shapiro and Roger Young printed the T-Shirts (Credit)
Though white South Africans cannot be uniformly lumped together just by what appears in the comments section anywhere, my gut feeling is that the negativity portrayed there is not too far from where the majority stand on taking responsibility for their apartheid derived privileges.

It is also fair to note that there are comments from white South Africans that understand the need to take responsibility for the apartheid past if even just to resist from making denigrating statements about blacks.

And we are not free.

Onward!

Friday, November 16, 2012

News From the Loon Bin: Blasphemy charges filed over gay Jesus play in Greece

The Times
Reuters
November 16, 2012.

Actors and the producer of a Greek play that depicted Jesus Christ and his apostles as gay have been charged with blasphemy, court officials said on Friday.

A production of "Corpus Christi" in Athens was cancelled this month after weeks of almost daily protests outside the theatre by priests and right-wing groups, including deputies from the ultra-nationalist Golden Dawn party.

Charges of "insulting religion" and "malicious blasphemy" have been filed after Bishop Seraphim of Piraeus lodged a lawsuit against those involved in the play, the officials said.

The play's director told Reuters he was stunned that prosecutors had chosen to go after him rather than pursue tax evaders and others blamed for driving Greece to near-bankruptcy.

"What I see is that there are people who have robbed the country blind who are not in jail and the prosecutor turns against art," Albanian-born Laertis Vasiliou said.

If found guilty, Vasiliou and the other defendants could face several months in prison. A trial date has not yet been set.

Dozens of demonstrators, including some from Golden Dawn, blocked the entrance of the theatre and clashed with police on the night of its premiere last month.

Bearded black-robed priests holding crosses were shown on television tearing up posters promoting the play. The Orthodox Church is an integral part of Greek society and a powerful institution.

Golden Dawn, which entered parliament this year for the first time in its history, has been increasingly flexing its muscle and polls show its hard line against immigrants and corrupt politicians is boosting its popularity.

Last month, Greek state television came under fire from the main opposition party and critics for editing a gay kiss out of the primetime premiere of British period drama "Downton Abbey".

*****
Comment:  These folks are the descendants of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Homer!

And they have devolved to this level of insanity.  How tragic ;0)

This loony sh*t is making my head pound something fierce.

Ummm Laura ... can you bring me a whole handful of aspirin please? 

Onward!

Israeli Terror in Gaza

Palestinian supporters hold a protest outside Parliament in Cape Town against 
the fighting in Gaza. (Schalk van Zuydam, AP) 

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Carlos Latuff on Operation Cast Lead TWO: Is Gaza on the verge of another Israeli massacre?

Credit

Comment: See Occupied Palestine for live coverage of Israel's brutality in Gaza.

Also see Glenn Greenwald's article "Obama's Kill List Policy Compels US Support for Israeli Attacks on Gaza" (November 15).

This quote from Greenwald's conclusion captures his argument succinctly:
"Obama - the killer of Anwar al-Awlaki, Awlaki's 16-year-old American son Abdulrahman, and countless other innocent men, women, teenagers and children - could not possibly condemn Israeli actions in Gaza without indicting himself. Extra-judicial assassinations, once roundly condemned by US officials, are now a symbol of the Obama presidency, as the US and Israel converge more than ever before: if not in interests, than (sic) certainly in tactics."
Jihad al-Masharawi, a Palestinian employee of BBC Arabic in Gaza, carries the body of his 11-month-old son Omar, who according to hospital officials was killed by an Israeli air strike in Gaza City 15 November, 2012. (Photograph: Mohammed Salem/Reuters)  (Caption Credit)

STOP ISRAEL'S WAR ON GAZA !!!
Onward!

Pat Bagley on the White Secessionist Rant in the US

Credit

Comment:  See this RT article "Nearly half of the US threatens to secede" (November 12).

Hat tip to the ANG newswire (Aboriginal News Group) for carrying this article. 

By the way, if you not reading there (ANG) on the daily you are missing an excellent source of news and analysis.

Onward!

The Inherent Racism in David James' Countercurrents Article Entitled "Some Brief Thoughts On Race-Fetishism And Identity Politics On The Left"

In recent days I have been embroiled in an argument with a man who defines himself as "white" (though he capitalizes white), "left" and an "anarchist" who lives in Seattle.

His name is David James and he says he is a longtime correspondent at Countercurrents though this is the first time I have read anything by him.

I am a longtime admirer of Countercurrents and often cross post their excellent coverage here.  It was for no small reason that I was shocked that James' article was even published there.

Now James seems to mistakenly think I was calling for censoring him when I made this point.  My point was not to censor the man (or rather advocate that he be censored), it was merely a statement of disbelief that his racist views would be aired at a radical site like Countercurrents.

Last night I wrote a fourth comment in reply to David who has posted many more replies of astounding verbosity and paranoid self-importance.

Countercurrents has not, however, published my fourth response.  I expect that my response is being set aside but I can't be sure so I will post it below just in case.

This is after all my blog and a major reason why I write here and not elsewhere (outside of ANG) is because I detest being deemed unpublishable for whatever reason.

If you have the stomach for a back and forth over race between yours truly and a white self styled revolutionary in Seattle please read here.

Oh I should mention that I like Seattle but on my many trips there (as recent as a couple of months ago) it has not escaped my attention that it is a white city through and through.  Not as white as Portland but white enough in numbers and politics to make me wonder why James' is so adamant that he is being oppressed up there (James disagrees that Seattle is one of the whitest cities in the Pacific Northwest - amazing huh?)

It is hilarious to me that a white man who claims to be lefty can seriously float the argument that he is now oppressed by what he calls a "new racism" that is anti-white.  I mean this kind of mindset is found among white-right folks like the Tea Party and other right-wing racists in Romney's camp, for example.

But that is far from the worst of it.  I about fell over when I read him cite research to make this ludicrous claim in a comment:
" ... just about every White person has suffered from racism directed at non-Whites, not been privileged by it."
You read that right!

Also notice he does not capitalize the non part in his "non-White" label.  It is not a keyboard error he does it elsewhere but he does capitalize the word "Whitest" nonetheless. 

Robert Sobukwe once told me never to accept the label of being a non-white.  "You are not a negative to white people," he told me and I have remembered that defiant wisdom from that day (I was about 12) onward!

James position on white suffering marks a moment in my personal history and in my academic work in race theory that I will never forget.

I have never, ever, come across anyone, let alone a white lefty, who has made the claim that white people have "suffered" from the racism that whites have historically directed at blacks.

This is truly a new low in white appropriation.  It is mind boggling to say the least.

Here in South Africa you will find a ton of white victims of racism at News24 or IOL or anywhere else there is a forum for discussing topical issues that pertain to South African politics and society.

The flight to white victimhood is a uniform global experience it seems 'cause a lot of those white racists in South Africa sound just like James.

I get the distinct feeling that James, like most racists, does not like folks of color who push his white privilege buttons.  In one post he even talked about racially conscious blacks who cannot identify with terms like bourgeois (he racially contained these blacks into an "average" too), in another instance he referred to a black woman who disagreed with him as an "idiot" and in yet another he claims most folks of color in the Occupy demonstrations (it was not a movement hey) were anti-white.

Perhaps the best nonsense to come from his comments is that it is racist to blame race for the "ills" of the world.  He must mean whiteness, no?  But true to racist form he prefers to make it seem that whites as individuals are being blamed (therefore they are oppressed) in critiques of race and racism (particularly those found in Critical Race Theory).

The man is a delusional fossil parading under the guise of an analytical leftist who is calling for class-based (workers) revolution while replicating the disfigurement caused by white racism.

OK, so I expect that maybe a handful of regulars here may take a gander at my argument with James and the rest will probably think it is all a waste of time (or perhaps effort is a better word).

I also expect that my email box will get more than just one reminder to lay off the theoretical and mastubatory war with racists - this time one in the city that has given us Starbucks.

So below is my now fifth unedited response (like the fourth it is also unpublished as of this writing) to David James' racist diatribe at Countercurrents:
It appears that David thinks I am calling for him to be censored.  This is not true even though he has taken on the racist habit of not speaking to me directly.

This is a form of racist censoring in which the objectified Other is erased. 

These are important matters that should be raised in a forum like this because it demonstrates racist practices that some among the so called left use to silence/disfigure the experiences of people of color.

What David's article here and his comments prove is that there is a minority white mindset in leftist circles that has not disappeared.  It is a mindset still fixated on the Marxist deployment of Hegelian racism that argued that colonialization was necessary to move the colonial subject into the next materialist phase of history.  Hegel's basis for geographical history was of course much more racist than Marx and did not even expect that Africans had the ability to be anything more than savages (conservatives like Samuel Huntington use the framework of this argument too, go figure).

This nonsense must be resisted because it distorts the reality of suffering under racism and it also obscures the manner in which the racialized subject (the racially oppressed) organizes and deploys resistance (it robs people of their agency to wage struggle against racism).

In these terms David's argument is unpopular (as he concedes) not only because it is racist but because it is absolutely discredited inside and outside of the empire (and its attachments).

I raised these issues in a final comment submitted here yesterday but it has not been published.  I want to believe that it has just been lost and not set aside in favor of the verbose racism that parades under a banner of a 'materialist' argument by the author of this article.

It should be recognized that race/racialization theory is a widely discussed area of concern and not a selective footnoting of authors (particularly academics) in the West.  The voices and experiences of black/brown folk outside of the West/American empire are relevant.

David has provided a list of names that only reinforces the myopic fixation of centering his Eurocentric arguments around his white male experience.  Where he has deemed my critique is biased against all white analysts he has taken to the offensive practice of citing authors of color.  This habit only presses the unpleasant reality that David is a proponent of race essentialism despite his race deconstruction pretenses.

One final point, David asserts that my comments/arguments are not analytical (reasoned) but rather a diagnosis/misdiagnoses of his view.

This thinking/emphasis is nothing more than a redeployment of the old racist thesis that intellectual vigor and analysis are a hallmark of western civilization (the civilization David paradoxically presses to be white as far back as the classic Greeks even).

The dissenting Other (me in this case) in this damaging thinking is deemed not to be analytical but maladaptive and so in large part implying an emotional worthlessness. 

Not speaking to me directly allows the author the racist power to collapse my person/individuality into a catalog of rehearsed complaints about people of color (like the "majority" of people of color that so displeased David in the Occupy movement).

If these points are not deemed by the moderators here to be worthy of a response to David's blatant racism in his article and his multiple comments then I am afraid we have lost sight of anti-racist struggle.

But that said I remain appreciative of the opportunity to read here and comment here. 
Onward!

Update (November 15, 17:13 SA time):  As of this writing Countercurrents has not published my fourth comment or the one above.

I think we can reasonably assume that these two comments have been deemed unworthy of inclusion in the discussion.  

I have sent the editor, Mathew Binu, an email to ask why.

Update (November 15, 21:00):  The editor at Countercurrents has responded.  There was a time delay in getting the comments up - all of which are now posted.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

John Cole on US Military Ethics

Zille Calls on Zuma To Intervene in De Doorns

IOL
SAPA
November 13, 2012.

Johannesburg - Western Cape Premier Helen Zille had asked President Jacob Zuma to intervene in the De Doorns farmworkers' wage dispute, her office said on Tuesday.

“The consequences of the current crisis will be very severe for the Western Cape and South Africa as a whole if they are not immediately addressed,” Zille wrote in a letter to Zuma.

She asked him to delegate Labour Minister Mildred Oliphant to address the situation.

Zille also called on the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) to take part in the discussions without inciting intimidation.

“It is nothing short of a disgrace that a formal Cosatu statement announced ‘Marikana has come to the farms’.”

On Wednesday, Cosatu’s Western Cape secretary Tony Ehrenreich said talks had to find a way for workers to get decent wages, and to end “the atrocious living conditions of workers on farms and in the informal areas”.

“The ill treatment and under-payment of workers by some farmers must stop, otherwise we will see a Marikana in De Doorns,” he said.

Farmworkers in the area started protesting last week in demand of a R150-a-day wage and better working conditions.

On Tuesday, a policeman had to be hospitalised after being hit on the head by a stone thrown by protesters. On Monday, 10 people were arrested for public violence and intimidation.

The Freedom Front Plus has also criticised Cosatu for making statements calling for violence.

FFPlus spokesperson Pieter Groenewald said on Tuesday it would ask the South African Human Rights Commission to investigate the “correctness” of statements attributed to Ehrenreich.

According to Groenewald, Ehrenreich allegedly told farmers: “There is already blood on the farmworkers and unless it stops there will be blood on the farmers of these farms.

“We will grab the land and give it to the rightful owners... We are here today to declare war. We are against violence, but if this is what it takes to force a bad farmer in a direction, then they should be smashed in that direction.”

Groenewald said Ehrenreich apparently then told farmers that those who treated workers like dogs should be beaten until they stopped.

On Tuesday, Witzenburg municipality officials said protesting farmworkers had caused damage estimated at R500 000. “Property damage has been sustained including the destruction of a packing shed, veld fires, damage to farming crops, burning of tyres in streets and throwing of stones,” said municipal spokesperson Anette Radjoo.

*****
Comment: Just days ago Helen Zille's Democratic Party (DP) and a coalition of smaller parties in parliament motioned a vote of no confidence in President Zuma.

Now she is calling on Zuma to step in and defuse an entangled conflict over poor working conditions and slave-like wages for farmworkers in her province.

Farmworkers earn an average of R75 a day, that is $8.53 US.  This is a shocking state of affairs made worse by the fact that a large proportion of black/coloured workers live on the farms where they work and have rent and utilities (electricity) deducted from their paychecks.

A loaf of bread costs an average of R10.  A liter of milk is roughly about the same.  How is anyone expected to feed a family and secure its future on R75 a day?

A couple nights ago a female farmworker was on television explaining that after deductions she has almost nothing left to feed her family and pay for schooling for her children.

This is a terrible situation of exploitation that has long racialized roots.  It is made worse by the fact that Helen Zille is loath to point to the racism that keeps black/coloured farmworkers in such abject working conditions.

If you are thinking modern day slavery you are not too far from being right.  Yet some whites will go to pains to explain that race/racism is not part of the equation.   

See for example my ongoing disagreement with a self-styled 'left anarchist' author at Countercurrents who wants folks of color to forget the 'false consciousness' of race so he and his comrades in Seattle can lead us to post-capitalist nirvana.  Folks who think like this are a large part of the problem and engaging them in any form of struggle is just a waste of time.  For the most part they are hardly different than the virulent racists who do not hide their white interests under fanciful anti-racist and/or materialist theories.

The ruling party has to accept a large part of the blame for what is wrong in this situation but it is somewhat disingenuous on behalf of the DP to want to unseat the ANC yet they prove utterly useless when it comes to handling and diffusing such race-laden conflicts.

But then again this is exactly why the white-dominated liberal party of Helen Zille is not an alternative to the ANC.  The truth is they are simply out of touch with the lives of the majority who suffer conditions that equate with the worst of apartheid.

At the center of the conflict in De Doorns is capitalist exploitation and its ideological mindset is framed by white racism and its structural history.

Two decades into the post era it is not too hard to find that the white capital and industry barons that still run South Africa alongside a small comprodore class of black ANC-aligned sellouts are in the usual business of racist exploitation for profits.

If you read the comments below the article above you will find hoards of white racists who are unable/unwilling to appreciate the depths of suffering experienced by the impoverished black masses.

For too many whites the conditions that blacks suffer is a matter of poor governance by the ANC.

You will even find whites who blame the ANC for the working conditions of black farmworkers in De Doorns!

These folks are out of touch and typically racist.  In their terms they see themselves as the victims of black greed and a government that is corrupt.

And in so doing they conveniently disentangle themselves from taking responsibility for apartheid and its fallout if even in a small humane gesture to the impoverished masses.

How does anyone in South Africa expect a black/coloured farmworker in De Doorns to work for R75 a day in a multi-million dollar industry that is essentially enslaving its workers?

This is an untenable situation that must change.

And we are not free.

Onward!

Update (November 14): See M&G article " Western Cape farm workers suspend protests" here.