Sunday, December 29, 2013

The Very Good In Robert Gabriel Mugabe

[Posted in the interest of having the whole truth]

The bush war for liberation was a long and very bloody affair. 
Many thousands of our people died, and were maimed, on account of Ian Smith’s racist intransigence. 

There was much reason to be bitter; to be hateful; to be vengeful. Robert Gabriel Mugabe was not.

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was not the first to be forgiving, magnanimous and reconciliatory. It seemingly earned Robert Gabriel Mugabe a knighthood, but not a Nobel Peace prize.

Emphatic testament of this was that he appointed Peter Walls as our first National Army Commander. Peter Walls had been the Commander of the very forces used by Smith in a vain attempt to prevent our liberation in a bitter
war of attrition.

His commitment to true democracy was immediately tested when Edgar Tekere, President of his party, ZANLA, was involved in the killing of Gerald Adams, a White farmer. 
Despite Tekere’s position, and his claims that the killing had occurred unavoidable during the course of a legitimate security sweep of an area presenting as a threat to national security, Mugabe ensured that the law should take its course. 

In this way he was insisting that the taking of human life, White or Black, was prima facie unlawful and could only be resolved by our independent Court of Law and Justice. Tekere, as a Black liberation hero, and Gerald Adams, a White farmer, were equal under the law. 
The Trial Court was also specially constituted to reflect the demographics of our new born country, comprising a White Judge (John Pitman), a Senior Black Magistrate (Peter Nemapare) and a Coloured Provincial Magistrate (Chris Greenland). It is pertinent to point out that both Nemapare and Greenland had been Magistrates under the Smith regime. 
On conclusion of the trial Mugabe accepted the verdict and observed that “The trial was conducted according to the best traditions of our inherited judicial system”.
In this way Mugabe posted the rule of law as paramount.

He ensured that the judiciary was independent and staffed by competent Judges, drawn from our Black, White, Asian and Coloured ethnic groups. When I was asked to accept a judgeship it was explained to me that it was very important that the Courts be seen as representative of ALL the people. 

Notable is the fact that he ensured the appointment of Mr J C R Fieldsend, as our first Chief Justice, even though Fieldsend had agreed with a decision, handed down by the Supreme Court of Rhodesia, that the Smith government was entitled to govern. [Daniel Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke]

During the five years I served as a Judge, not once was there any interference with the judiciary.

The Mugabe Cabinet also included the likes of Dennis Norman and Chris Anderson, holding the important portfolios of Agriculture and Public Service respectfully, despite having been Ian senior acolytes of Ian Smith and his oppressive regime.

When corruption beset our young democracy he immediately appointed an independent judicial commission of inquiry to investigate and report, i.e, the Sandura Commission. 

Mugabe ensured that our newly born country adopted and entrenched a Constitution that was an embodiment of all the sacred Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At that time it was probably the best in the World. Under it all were equal, possessed of all rights and privileges that accrue in a free society, whatever one’s race, colour, ethnicity, gender, creed, sexual orientation or religious persuasion.

In particular our rights were enforceable before the independent Superior Courts, whose decisions and rulings were respected, accepted and enforced by the State.
All this ensured that we all felt united as one people, as Africans, as Zimbabweans. We felt safe. We felt proud.
We were filled with hope, great hope, of a wonderful future in which we could all realize our full potential as free human beings.

Then came Gukuranhundi in 1983. Because Mugabe was married to Communist/Marxist ideology he enlisted the services of North Korea.
Genocide was committed.
Once he found that he could do nothing about the culprits he was forever compromised and Zimbabwe became a de facto military State.
The rest is history.


Also go to -----


Tuesday, October 29, 2013

EXCLUSION --- the culture of racists

Exclusion and/or political exclusion and/or social exclusion is a term used by social scientists to describe how a dominant group will set criteria that ensures that other groups are denied equal rights.
So under apartheid in South Africa and colonialism, in Rhodesia, the majority was excluded from recognition, treatment and acceptance as equal human beings on the basis of racial and ethnic criteria.
Has this perverse culture left us? Has it been relegated to the dustbin of history? 
The liberation war in Rhodesia, and the armed struggle in South Africa, were predicated on the commitment to rid the region of this culture and to ensure that all would be equal, possessed of the same rights. The Freedom Charter says as much.
So has that objective been achieved? Do we now insist that every compatriot must be recognized, accepted and treated as an equal? 

Sadly, the answer is NO!
Daily we see posts on social media in which some aspect pertaining to a compatriot is dredged up and posted so as to "differentiate" that person (or persons).
A typical example is to posit Whites as "colonialists", even though they were all born long after colonialism existed. 
Another example is to condemn Coloured folk for thus defining themselves as being neither Black nor White which is actually a genetic, anthropological reality.
Another example is reference all Black folk as having the mentality, culture and mode of Robert Mugabe and his party.
So too, as regards Gays and lesbians who are condemned and persecuted for their sexual orientation. 
Thus we see a post on the Zimbabwean Patriots site in which Whites are taken to task for not having learnt an indigenous language. We see statements like "a White person can never be an African". 
Notable is how personal insult, vilification and denigration is visited on those of us who have independent and non-conformists mindsets.
All these examples are no more, no less, a manifestation of the "four legs good, two legs bad" syndrome that George Orwell so brilliantly portrays in his classic work "Animal Farm".

All these posts and comments have one thing in common. They seek to differentiate compatriots. They are designed to draw attention to some aspect, real or imagined, about the compatriot referred to, that can be used as justification NOT to recognize, accept and treat that person simply as an equal.

In this way we see that the culture of "exclusion" is alive and kicking in our region.
It is a dangerous diabolical mentality.
It played its part in Ghukurahundi. It was a fundamental driver of the xenophobic killings in South Africa in which our people were cremated alive. 
This camp of "exclusionists" have no affinity to the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (UDHR) that makes this statement at its very start -
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world .. "
They want compatriots to be seen as different. They do not want a culture of universal acceptance and brotherhood. 

The reasons are somewhat complex but include, in the main -
a) highly affected grievances promoted by the political camp to which they belong; e.g the so called Economic Freedom Fighters in South Africa and ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe; (the political camp promotes the exclusionist culture to hide, mask and obfuscate their failures).
b) concomitantly, feelings of personal inadequacy, inferiority and uncompetitiveness in relation to the person(s) they attack.
c) poor personal culture internalized subjectively on account of defective environment and education, e.g, most of these bright sparks have never even heard of the UDHR.

In this way we see that there are those who piously lament the past, in which humans were excluded from recognition, acceptance and treatment as equals ... 
.... whilst now seeking to pontifically do exactly the same thing to others.

In this way we see how the oppressed becomes the oppressor.

I this way we see old supremacism being replaced by new supremacism. 

It is this culture that ultimately led to the Holocaust in Germany and genocide in Rwanda.

Order ---

Monday, April 29, 2013

WTF South Africa?. What are you trying to do to Coloured folk?

Yes, this title is crude and obscene.  However that it exactly the point that South Africa has arrived at, with eyes wide shut.
A Superior Court is being asked to sanction a situation where, by law, Coloured folk in the Western Cape will be compelled to uproot themselves from a land that they have occupied for centuries and migrate.
This will be the inevitable result of employers being forced to retrench them from employment and thereafter deny them employment.  A previous estimate put the number at in excess of one million Coloured workers that will be affected.
The above will be the necessary and inevitable consequence of Court’s decision should the Court rule in favour of the Government’s case. The case involves 10 Coloured officers who have been deliberately discriminated against and denied promotion in the Correctional Services Department on the basis of their ethnicity. See ---
They were passed over with Black officers, junior to them, promoted instead.
In simple terms Government argues that such discrimination is justified under the Employment Equity Act because it is “equitable” that the numerical dominance that Black folk have countrywide must also be reflected in the workplace in the Western Cape, even though Coloured folk comprise 56% of the populace in that Province, with Black folk comprising 26%.
As said, if government wins, over one million Coloured families stand to experience the trauma of being divested of an income and being forced to uproot and migrate to other provinces as economic refugees seeking sanctuary, sustenance and security as human beings. 
In effect the ANC government now wants to achieve the result that
was previously spearheaded by its then spokesman Jimmy Manyi in contending that Coloured folk were "over represented" in the Western Cape and needed to migrate. On that occasion the ANC government was shamed into abandoning a Bill that it had signed off on that would have forced this result.
It is quite difficult to imagine anything more racist, immoral and absurd. It is obscene and vomitus that a government can be asking a Court to do this to its own people. It is even more vomitus that South African society is acquiescing, conniving and colluding at this obscene and tragic pantomime, playing out before its eyes and under its nose.
Apart from bereavement  relocation is the most traumatic experience that a person can be subjected to. Forced relocation must be categorized as cruel, inhuman and degrading
However all this appears to be lost on a South African populace that is now so cowed and demoralized that the most grotesque abnormality is simply accepted as 'normal". 
No one seems to see or realize the very obvious point that any system that subjects human beings to such treatment must be defined as a system of persecution and ethnic victimization for the simple but good reason that it is only that grouping that is being visited with such hardship and oppression. The stance by government violates the most basic  tenets  of social  justice  and human rights.
So we have a situation where a society that came through one of the most pernicious and evil social systems that the World has ever experienced, known as apartheid, is now itself involved in attempting to perpetrate similar evil on an ethnic minority comprising its own people.  The majority seeks to subject a minority to a new brand of tyranny, the tyranny of the majority.
The majority is now claiming that it must be so dominant as to force the uprooting and migration of a minority so that it can, for the first time in history, claim the space occupied by that minority. The trauma of job loss, loss of homes and security, loss of dignity, the extreme trauma of relocation … are all irrelevant to the majority.
What is particular obscene is the fact that Coloured folk are actually the only direct descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Cape, being the KhoiSan, who were cruelly and forcibly dispossessed of this land during colonial times. Concomitantly the Black Nguni groupings have never had any occupational or possessive claims on this region historically. But now, by some stinky skewed logic they have.
At a stroke Coloured folk are to be stripped of their homeland and forced to move elsewhere ... because they are not Black. At a stroke Black folk will acquire what was never theirs … because they are Black. 
WTF! WTF! WTF! There is simply no other way of putting it, given its absolutely vile implications and consequences.
It is incomprehensible to think that a Counsel are robed and appearing before a Court of "Justice" arguing such aberrant nonsense. It is mind boggling! 

It gives me no pleasure to say “I told you so”. What is happening is an inevitable and predictable consequence of South Africa’s racist, immoral and absurd Affirmative Action transformation model that I have submitted yearly appeals on to all media and opinion makers in this country. See --- . I predicted that evil would beget evil.
In particular it should be noted that the contention by the ANC government is not that the Black officers are any better than the Coloured officers, or even that they are disadvantaged. The contention is that they are "black".
The contention against the Coloured officers is not that they do not merit promotion. It is that they are "not black".
When Alan Paton penned his iconic novel "Cry The Beloved Country" we can be sure that he could not have anticipated that the country would be in the throes of shedding such grotesque tears 18 years after independence that was won at such terrible cost.
In his famous "never again" speech Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela straddled the whole World as a moral giant and gave the guarantee that never again would one race  or ethnic group oppress another in South Africa.
To day, we see the ANC government passionately advocating persecution and oppression.
However, as a Judge, I have every faith that the Superior Courts will NOT sanction this new racist madness.
Even if the government is right in its interpretation of the Employment Equity Act, it means that that Act must be struck down by the Constitutional Court for being unconstitutional.

Order ---

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Looking back at colonialism -- soberly

Time and time again we see posts that are concerned to dredge up the past in order to wallow in aggrievement, accuse and condemn.
The focus includes bitter commentary on the central issue of racism.  Note that tribalism is hardly ever mentioned.
To my mind it is therefore very necessary to have a hard, but dispassionate look at that past in order to “balance things up” a bit.  It is what sentient beings do.
When we do so we can abstract the following relevant factors that impact the issue at hand.
  1. The White invader was not, at that time, imbued with a developed human rights culture, let alone any commitment to non-racism. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was only adopted in 1947.  As much as the USA had, in 1776, adopted this statement – “ all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” there was no generalized international culture of adherence in the world.
  2. In fact international culture continued to be what was, and always had been = invade, conquer and subjugate. Man had been doing this from time immemorial.  No geographical region was spared, from Egypt to the annihilation of the Incas in South America. The Greeks did it. The Romans did it with aplomb. Genghis Khan has the dubious distinction of having killed more human beings, in overrunning Asia, than were killed in the last World War.
  3. So the "scramble for Africa"  also known as "the Race for Africa" was always going to happen. 
  4. There was never going to be any chance of Africa being spared being invaded, conquered and subjugated. Throughout previous history, might was always right. Throughout history man had ventured across the planet in search of new worlds. It was as natural to the international mindset as breathing.
  5. So the above is a harsh reality that we cannot wish away.  It is how the world was .. and always was.  It was how people thought and acted in them days.
  6. In such a situation unqualified condemnation is plainly unrealistic. “Unrealistic” because it seeks to import standards, norms, codes and values that did not exist at that time. We are imposing our current values and morals on a period in which they simply did not exist.
  7. As regards our local African conditions of the time the harsh reality is that there was little, perhaps no difference to the culture of the invader.
  8. This region was not imbued with anything like a human rights culture. There was no concept of “equality”; far from it. “Inequality” was deeply embedded throughout all structures and accepted psychologically.  Neither King Shaka Zulu, Mzilikazi or King Lobengula ruled with anything other than a despotic iron fist, with the King having complete prerogative over who lived and who died.
  9. Racial antipathy (usually referred to as “tribal”) was deeply ingrained. Neither the Zulus, not the Ndebeles considered any other tribe as equal. All other tribes were ranked in an order of lowliness, and treated accordingly.
  10. In fact the Zulu nation was, and still is, specifically structured on the basis of inequality with its  Abezansi [who were the aristocrats], the Abenhla [middle class] and the Amaholi classes.
  11. The Romans were divided into patricians and plebians.  The English were deeply divided between the working class and the aristocracy. We can continue this list across the planet historically.
  12. In South Africa Shaka and Mzilikazi mounted their mfecane campaigns that were so brutal as to depopulate whole regions.  In Zimbabwe King Lobengula would throw a spear into the ground and his impi would be on its way to kill, rape and rob every other human being found in that direction.
  13. In this situation the reality was one of entrenched racism, i.e., tribalism; and this carried though to all aspects of life and social attitudes.
  14. So, as much as it is true that the White invader had a very bad culture, in terms of our current value set, it was hardly any different from that of our own people.  The White man did not invent or import the culture of racial/ethnic inequality.  It was already here, very much alive and kicking.  To pretend otherwise is to indulge in emotive irrationalism.
  15. My own Gogo did not regard tribes other than Ndebele as equal. She would spit if she saw an Indian, an Afrikaner or member of some of the other Black tribes. She respected only the English and the Germans. As far as I could make out this was because she regarded them as “great warriors’ for having fought such a great and bloody world war. (WWII).
  16. And then the world changed, reaching a point where it adopted the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights in 1948.
  17. It went further and started approving of the reversal of the previous culture of invade, conquer and subjugate.  It is this that British prime minister Harold Macmillan warned the SA Parliament about in his famous “Winds of Change” speech in 1960.
  18. The reversal came and we were "freed”.
  19. Similarly we cannot NOW condemn Black folk because, in the past they would kill one twin at birth and a child if its top teeth appeared first. i.e, proof that it was a born witch or wizard.
  20. It is also the culture of those who want to perpetuate the very culture they say they are against and are complaining off.
  21. Interesting also was what happened in many cases involving the issue of identity. A Black witness is asked to describe who he/she says committed the particular offence in issue. The witness is pressed on the issue of identity – [Extract from book]
Prosecutor: How can you be absolutely certain that it was the accused in the dock?
Witness: Because he is ugly
Prosecutor: What do you mean when you say that he is ugly?
Witness: Because he is black
As said, colour based prejudice is simply not the sole preserve of any particular ethnic group.

So in looking at the past we really do need to factor in  the realities of those times.  It is simply unfair and illogical to assign norms and values that simply did not exist at the time.  At that time “might was right”, even among our own people. Had Africa been stronger it would have invaded Europe and subjugated the Europeans. It is really as simple as that.
In fact North Africans invaded and occupied Spain for some 700 years until they were driven out.
We must also accept that the pre-existing culture of inequality, on the part of both the White invader and our own people, then found expression in ALL our communities.  A culture of inequality was guaranteed and the challenge has always been to rid ALL groups of this scourge.
And just as important is the realization that we simply have no basis for imagining that we would have been in a better place had colonialism not occurred.
Pointing fingers is therefore the mode of those who have little understanding of reality and want to wallow and act out real and often imagined grievance.

I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
I'm for justice,
no matter who it's for or against.
Malcolm X
Order ---

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Zimbabwe's so called "Land Reform"

In Zimbabwe human beings, of White and Coloured ethnicity, were violently dispossessed of their land.
ZANU-PF and its supporters have claimed that this was to reverse what happened under colonialism.
Is this true?
Here is the simple unarguable answer.

  1. It is true that the land was forcefully grabbed by White colonialists in express breach of African Law and Custom. Coloureds were not involved as they were not born.
2. In particular, please note that African Law and Custom NEVER permitted private ownership of land.  Land was always communal.  

3. So the White settlers were wrong to convert communal land to private.
However our Constitution, adopted in 1980, expressly protected private ownership of ALL property, including land.

4. So it changed African Law and Custom. 

5.And please note that the Constitution protected ALL human beings, including the descendants of the colonial settlers and immigrants, not just Black folk. 

6. This means that there could never be any legal grabbing of land. 

7. So the land could only be then grabbed from White owners on MORAL or POLITICAL  grounds, not legal grounds;
... and it is this MORAL/Political justification that is always advanced by the ZANU-PF camp.

8. It is self evidently immoral to grab property from another human being that he/she has acquired lawfully, as with the farm that was grabbed by Rex Nhongo, (Solomon Mujuru) for instance. 

9. Most of the farms that were grabbed were acquired NOT inherited from colonialists … as with my uncle (a Coloured) who went into considerable debt and spent all his life building up the farm and who had been raised excusively by his African Gogo.

10. So too as regards the farm that Mujuru grabbed.

11. What is important to note is that the farms were grabbed and "handed over" for PRIVATE  ownership, and put into PRIVATE  hands.  

12. This proves conclusively that the land grabs were NEVER about reversing the colonial situation!!!!!!   

13. If the intention was to reverse the colonial situation then ALL LAND needed to be returned to COMMUNAL ownership and African Law and Custom restored.  

14. ALL LAND should have be rendered communal and made subject to African Law and Custom.
This has NOT happenned!

15. That ends the moral and/or political claims that have been fed to the masses. 

16. The moral/political justification is a monstrous lie. It is as simple as that.

17 As regards the legal/constitutional/human rights argument, African Judges at the SADC Tribunal had little difficulty is ruling that the land grabs were in breach of common law, our own Constitution and international precepts of human rights.
Other African judges in South Africa have since upheld those findings.  

So whichever way you want to bake it, if you are in possession of a farm that was grabbed, you are in possession of stolen property.  
Legally it has been stolen from the registered owner. Morally, it has been stolen from our own people. 
You are in possession of stolen property. You are in possession of stolen property. You are in possession of stolen property.

No good has come of this. No good will come of this, as the Mujuru family has found out.  So too will you, your children or your children’s’ children discover.

No amount of convenient excuses, obfuscation, political rhetoric, propaganda, spin, jiggle and jive can change this. 

I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
I'm for justice,
no matter who it's for or against.

Malcolm X

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Dubai --- as an ordinary human being

I recently had the privilege of travelling on a 7 day sojourn to Dubai, flying business class on Emirates Airline. Service on the flight was just ta!
In 1970 the area was little more than desert, with little infrastructure, little human capital and only one resource, oil. 
A vision was collectively set by the Emirates to become “The first, the best, the biggest”.
That vision has been spectacularly achieved on any number of counts, and Dubai is now the destination of choice across the planet.
I do not propose to list how and why Dubai can lay claim to the title “The first, the best, the biggest”.  You can just google this, starting with the Burj Khalifa (tallest), Burj Al Arab, Rose Rayhaan by Rotana (most expensive hotel), the Dubai Mall (biggest), Emirates Airline (largest airline) . .etc..etc.  The list is endless.
I was more interested in my impressions as an ordinary human being, not the rich and famous. So I did a lot of walking.
1.      It is an understatement to say that Dubai is beautiful. Let us just say that it is a never ending feast for the eyes.
2.      The streets were clean, well lit and marked.
3.      The whole place had an ambience that made you feel good, at peace, safe and alive.
4.      There were no signs of poverty, no beggars, no human misery.
5.      The air tasted good with not a hint of the scent of poverty.
6.      Shops were all well appointed and small and medium business enterprises were littered across all zones, barber shops, convenience and grocery stores, perfume stores, all kinds of food outlets … etc .. etc ... Everything was reasonably priced and of good quality.
7.      Foreign money could be exchanged very easily at no commission.
8.      Internet cafes provided excellent service at little cost at lightening connection speeds.
9.      Public transport, trains, buses and taxis were readily available at very reasonable rates, with waiting time of never more than 5 mins on any. The metro rail was always full, but everyone always behaved with due consideration for others.
10.   Toilets everywhere were scrupulously clean with most also providing hand lotions and scented condiments.
11.   What impressed me most were the people. It is quite difficult to imagine a more ethnically diverse populace, comprising a rich admixture of East, West and Arab with a sprinkling of African.
12.   I would need to be a poet, bard or painter to try and recreate the enormous variations of human facial beauty, physique and garb that is ever present on the streets and malls of Dubai. Even in my imagination I had not known so many variations of human beauty. And Yes, the girls seemed to outnumber the boys by a long way. Yummy!
13.   I felt immensely satisfied that the preferred skin tone, by a big margin, was some nice shade of brown.  Wonderful!  
In short I always felt good. I felt human. I felt safe. It was so good to be alive and part of the species known as homo sapiens.

So how did Dubai do it. How did it become the “The first, the best, the biggest”?
“A’ah but they have oil” I hear you blurt out. Truth is that oil comprises no more than 6% of their revenue! Gotcha! 
Note also that In 2010, the UAE's population was estimated at 8,264,070 of whom only 13% (less than 2 million) are UAE nationals or Emiratis, while the majority of the population are foreigners!!!!  Gotcha again!!!

The emirate's model of business drives its economy, with the effect that its main revenues are now from tourism, real estate, and financial services, similar to that of Western countries – NOT oil!
Real estate and construction (22.6%), trade (16%), entrepot (15%) and financial services (11%) are now the largest contributors to Dubai's economy. 6500 companies now have a trading base here. (124 of the Fortune 500) 95,000 small businesses now call Dubai home.

I did some research and crunched many numbers. The Emirates did it because they had real vision and very high emotional intelligence. They are innovative and imaginative, divested of irrational emotiveness. You really have to be psychologically and emotionally very mature to allow your own people to be outnumbered 7 to 1 by foreigners. Most of all you have understanding that diversity enriches, NOT impoverishes.

I met with fellow Africans from several African countries.  We had absolutely no difficulty in unconditionally accepting the spectacular achievement of the Emirates and tearfully lamenting the tragic failures of our own, especially Zimbabwe which had virtually unmatchable resources, infrastructure and human capital at Independence in April, 1980.
I mean how does a strip of desert become the world's No.1 tourist destination and Zimbabwe with its Victoria Falls, Kariba, Nyanga, Chimanimani, Vumba,  Hwange National Park .. etc . etc ... fail?  Who is fooling who here?
I could not answer a young Saudi lad who asked me to explain why we were persecuting the most productive sector in Zimbabwe with land grabs and indigenization, especially as these were not foreigners. 

I had been to my beloved homeland a month before. The comparison made me physically sick, especially remembering the smell of human misery as I drove into Harare at 5 am, when the air is supposed to be at its freshest.
Order ---

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

A New Years Appeal To South Africa

This was first posted in January 2011 and again in Jan 2012. It was widely circulated. However it was completely ignored by all those that it appeals to. I remain undeterred, as truth must always endure.
It as relevant as ever as during  past years we have heard Whites being referred to as "thieves" and Lindiwe Mazibuko being attacked just for being a Black in the Democratic Alliance, just for starters. Comments on social network sites, and in response to media reports, show that the populace is as racially orientated as ever.
None other than the President, Jacob Zuma, has just lambasted our Black populace not to love dogs and use facial and hair enhancement lotions, as this betrays Black ethnicity. "Even if you apply any kind of lotion and straighten your hair, you will never be white," he was reported as saying.  
This is terrible stuff! really!.
He had previously voiced discomfort with the current Black Economic Empowerment model (BEE), saying what we all already know – that it has proved to be simply a vehicle for enrichment of a new “connected” elite. Read ....
So, once again, this is a direct appeal to Redi Tlhabi, John Robbie, Jenny Crwys-Williams (all of Radio 702), Justice Malala, Professor Pierre de Vos, Patricia de Liile, Helen Zille, Judge Dennis Davis, Mondli Makhanya (Sunday Times),  Ferial Haffaje (Mail & Guardian), Bongani Keswa (the Sowetan) … and other influence peddlers in South African Society.
Please decide which of the following statements are true as regards South Africa -
a)   human beings are categorized according to race, colour and ethnicity under Affirmative Action (AA) laws and BEE protocols;
b)   with Whites excluded from jobs and contracts as a matter of course;
c)  with Blacks included as of right;
d) and with Coloureds/Indians/Chinese to be included only if they first claim and prove that they are Black;
e) so rights and privileges are being accorded on the basis of race, ethnicity and colour;
f) this was the paradigm approach of the apartheid culture and system;
g) that culture was racist;
h) racism is evil;
i) and evil begets more evil.
Never mind which you may want to bake it, all of the above statements appear to be true. It would appear that we have racism. We have adopted it, believe in it, nurture it,  sustain it, and propagate it … despite its evil nature.
At a stroke we appear to have adopted the very essence of the apartheid oppressor’s culture.
It is not the reality we wanted, or want … but it is the reality we got.
Certainly this is the position, unless one is able to counter this conclusion with the same simplicity of the statements advanced, without emotive obfuscation and political gobeldigook and spin.
The simple answer is that racial discrimination is not, in itself, racist. It is racist only if it lacks justification or is unfair. Given the need for massive transformation, after apartheid,  little socio-economic transformation would have occurred without  it. It would have been somewhat naive to believe that the largely "advantaged" Whites, who have as yet to just say sorry for the daily mistreatment of Blacks during apartheid, would have "volunteered" any form of real transformation.
In short, this is one of those rare occasions when the “end does justify the means”. Normally it does not, as would be the case where we would not award our “General” Cele a medal for uncovering a plot to bomb Soccer City and kill 75, 000 fans … if he uncovered the plot by torturing the informants.
Our case can be likened to having to use the venom of the snake itself in order to counter the effects of its bite.
But, of cause, as with using snake venom, we were always required to be acutely mindful of what we were dealing in, to proceed with extreme circumspection and to use no more of this venom than was absolutely necessary, if we were to avoid harming, even killing, the patient.
But, with respect, except as regards Employment Equity (salutary), which includes non-racial discrimination as regards gender and our disabled brethren, we have not been at all circumspect in the use of this poisonous elixir, but somewhat reckless. To-day we appear to have an “Animal Farm” situation where “Black good, White bad, Coloured/Indian not too good” as the underlying national premise on which entitlement to socio-economic rights and privileges accrue. President Jaco Zuma's latest "you want to be White"  gaffs have vindicated my stance on this quite spectacularly. 
The problem, and with respect, it is a terrible problem, was in the setting of the basic criteria under AA as “Black”. It would have been a relatively simple matter to set and implement it as subsisting apartheid induced disadvantage. Since Black folk are the majority in this category, they would still have been the majority beneficiaries of AA and other “real” transformation strategies.
The difference however, and it is a real difference, is that the socio-economic transformation model would then NOT have been racist.
This paradigm difference in approach would also have largely put paid to the present BEE model, which has but a nodding acquaintance with redressing disadvantage, and as Zwelinzima Vavi (President of Cosatu) says - "It is greed that is inspired by the conspicuous consumption of the new elite, the (black economic empowerment) types who blow up to R 700, 000 on one night parties ...” while millions are denied true transformation and still live under corrugated iron, cardboard and plastic. Read ....
It is blindingly clear that, because we prescribed being "Black", as opposed to NEED, as the paradigm criteria, opened the door for all these fat cats to tenderpreneur themselves to fabulous wealth whether or not they were ever disadvantaged. Evil begets evil!
This embedding of Black ethnicity, as the basic criteria, is having other pernicious repercussions. If you don’t think it is evil consider the plight of Coloureds as a "touchstone" test. During apartheid many Coloured families had a “White sheep of the family”. By this is meant, a family member who had “crossed over” and was very secretly “playing White” so as to secure socio-economic advantage.Now, by law and protocol, all Coloureds are required to “play Black”, so as to secure the same advantage.
You see, in Australia the government shamefully abducted Coloured children and tried to “breed out” their Black blood. Here we imagine that passing a law classifying them as Black under a so called “extended definition of Black” gets rid of the “Coloured problem”.
It is to state the obvious to say the a person should neither be advantaged or disadvantaged, purely on account of ethnicity.
Now, please ask any 5 year old child whether or not Trevor Manuel or Herschel Gibbs is “Black” . You are then going to have to deal in lies in order to assure the child that … blah, blah, blah … as you trot out the politics of advantage and disadvantage. Please spare the child the business about Chinese being Black.
Justice can never be founded on lies!
Consider what we are doing to our children with this “Animal Farm” environment in which “Black good, White bad, Coloured/Indian/Chinese not so good” is the message.
What do Sonia and Mathew Booth tell their children about who and what they are? This is wicked stuff. 
What is happening to the self-image of each of our little ones? Ask any criminologist and/or psychologist how important it is for human beings to accept and be proud of what and who they actually are. Problems with self image predisposes human beings to deviant and/or criminal conduct. What culture are they internalizing?
Do we really believe that one day Black folk will suddenly decide that Blacks are no longer "more equal then others" and that race, ethnicity and colour no longer matter? Do we really believe that? Do we really???
Are we so delusional as to believe that this obsession with race, colour and ethnicity is a worthy replacement for apartheid culture?
Oh yes, the American brand of AA is also raced based. The difference, and it is a huge difference, is that it is race based benevolence by a White majority for the benefit of a Black minority, apparently as an act of atonement. No one is prejudiced. No one is corruptly enriched. Despite this, the Courts there are still  often embroiled in having to deal with allegations of "reverse racism" with resolution dependent on whether the discrimination was just and equitable.
As said, if subsisting apartheid induced disadvantage, was the criteria for AA and other true transformation programs, we would not have our hands steeped in perpetuating the evil culture of our apartheid oppressors.
Now unless you are able to say that what appears above is not true, in language that has  the simplicity of truth, devoid of emotive obfuscation, you have a duty, a sacred duty, as an influence peddler, as an opinion maker, as a leader in your own right, to take on this evil. It is corrupting the very fabric of our society, subverting nationhood and fueling confusion, resentment and dysfunction.
You cannot continue to countenance the very essence of the culture of the apartheid oppressor and say, 
as it did  -
"we do this in the name of social justice".
I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
I'm for justice,
no matter who it's for or against.
Malcolm X
Free counters!