Steve on Facebook
Haloda
|
|
The death of Biko was a human rights violation. Sharpeville was not. |
 |
 |
 |
|
Friday, 23 March 2012 14:04 |
|
Every modern South African should by default be a human rights activist. Isn't that what we have been doing the last fifty years? First for black South Africans, then for poor South Africans and, lately, for white South Africans. When humans are treated unfairly, we don’t sleep well. No more so than when human rights violations are unfairly blamed for complex situations or when that handy human rights tool is used unfairly to hijacked the moral high ground for your history. I think it harsh when the French prescribe to their Muslim citizens what to wear. But do I see it as a human rights violation? Hardly. I find it ruefully tragic when protesters die at the hands of police, but is it always a human rights infraction? (The same lazy victimology is wonderfully exposed in as far as the international racial debates are concerned in Ali Rantsami’s ‘Racism’).
 The New South Africa brought about new awareness for Human Rights. After 1994 police abuses were reigned in (apparently), anti-torture policies were adopted, easier rights to bail afforded and the death penalty was abolished. All this liberty in the fastest crime wave since at least the Anglo Boer War of 1899 (I am paraphrasing Altbeker). Nevertheless, Human Rights are supposed to be alive and well in conflict-ridden South Africa thanks to tragic events like Sharpeville.
Sharpeville is seminal Struggle history, a most important turning point for Black Consciousness and the climaxing manifestation of disgruntled Africans in South Africa. Sharpeville was also distressing and regrettable. Especially the Sharpeville of 1976, the Soweto Uprisings, where children were involved. Is it a too long shot to accuse black activists (like Sobukwe and Boesak), who marched upon armed or military cordons WITH women and children, "aiming to get arrested" - to be accused of Human Rights violations? Konyi comes to mind.
In 1976 black students marched against what they perceived as inferior Bantu Education. This should not be confused with the similar event 15 years earlier (and 36 years later!), in the same town. South Africa was, like today, rife with civil unrest. The Afrikaner government then was losing the numbers game, sanctions handicapped their rule and economy, and Western liberals were trivializing what Afrikaners perceived as legitimate proprietorship and rule. During and after Verwoerd there was an easing off on some policies, but not political ones. Surrendering an inch here, would pave the way to sacrificing complete political rule. It remains incredible that this was seen as a crime against humanity simply because the rule, appropriated by contract, war and treaty, was that of a courages minority tribe. Let us all agree at this point that any minority rule anywhere would ultimately be unsustainable. When we live in a country with these irreconcilable memories, history is lucky, as it can never become agreed upon fiction. Researching both Sharpeville incidents of 1960 and 1976, from liberal sources only, is no less confusing than when bringing in conservative or police statistics. Were the protesters unruly or jovial, were there “2000 or 20 000” (Welsch), were they armed, with guns or bricks, was there a scuffle, were there only scholars and women, etc.
Human Rights violations grieve me. In any country, against any group, race, culture, gender or human. But then this iniquity should have no mitigating justification. There should be no excuse for a Human Rights violation, because there is none. When 5000 protesters bear down on 300 policeman, they should....
1. not be in the most violent country in the world or on the most violent continent in modern history.
2. Tension should not be sky-high and there should be no reason to fear circumstances.
3. There should be no panic or reason to worry and certainly
4. no funerals for nine dead policemen the previous months in similar protests (Cato Manor).
5. There should be no calls to action, like “get your guns to moer the Boers" (Kasrils).
6. The angry protesters should be legal, tax-paying citizens of their country and
7. their bomb planting leadership should not be in prison for High Treason.
8. It is not a peaceful demonstration to "try to get arrested" as Robert Sobukwe insisted and
9. a drunk criminal (Witbooi) should not be firing shots in police presence.
10. Lastly, Struggle victory should not include the material prize of one of the richest countries in the world, all yours, merely by agitating for majority vote.
Only then do I slovenly throw around the accusation of Human Rights violations. Only in the absence of the above extenuating points can the firing policeman be called murderous. Only then would there be no contention.
 I believe the torturous death of the imprisoned Steve Biko a grave human rights violation. So are indefinite detentions, torture and incarceration without legal council. From the amount of calls from blacks on Twitter to kill me for this opinion, I felt that I had a similar Human Rights Day to Sobukwe. A fearful one: I received the ‘greatest’ human rights ‘ovation’ to a personal opinion, on March 21st, 2012, no less. My finding was that the murder of Steve Biko and many more were indeed human rights violations, but that the Sharpeville civil unrests, were not. I posted this opinion on Twitter. I wish I could say I trended due to engaging debate, which was the idea. But my tweet was met with typical South African verbal violence: that I should be killed, that Gareth Cliff (?) and I should be anally penetrated with various objects, that I deserve to die, that I will be visited, that I will not live to see the weekend, that I should emigrate or else...
Another day in the lives of the model democratic regime in the world.
Please do not hijack Human Rights Day for everything you dislike about history.
PS. When I get shot (clearly no 'ifs' here), it will underline the prematurity of this democracy to be rejoicing in democratic rights like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Information and general Human Rights.
We are no where close. |
|
|
My brief aan Holland (in Engels) |
|
|
|
|
Monday, 27 February 2012 09:25 |
|
The Dutch Legacy
Wij Boeren zijn jullie pionierziel. Julle zijn jullie afkomst vergeten als jullie denken dat wij hier niet zullen sterven voor de liefde voor ons land, voor onze mensen en voor onze erfenis’.
- Steve Hofmeyr, Artikel7.nu, September 2011
 Dear Martin (Bosma, Dutch Parlementarian)
Our Dutch legacy is a rich one. They are, after all, the fathers of globalization. They travel well. Thus bringing some of Europe's finest ideas to an otherwise slumping planet. They braved the raging seas, then set foot on land half a world away from home to inspire trade and settlement. Their greatest war was that of conquering their own fear when facing the wild unknown and vastly uncharted. But when they planted their flag, they brought model civilization to those continents. Today, three hundred years down the line, us descendants proudly draw our lines from these founding fathers. We do not simply share common cultural ancestors, but we pride ourselves as the bloodline of the toughest of entrepreneurs, pioneers and settlers that the Dutch had to offer. Our religion and language are still deeply rooted in those of that people, and although many governments have forsaken us down the line, we still cling to the most admirable of those distinguishing traits. But more importantly, we do it with honour and pride. We have kept our pact with the motherland by receiving her citizens world-wide, forging strong relationships with people who still represent our work ethic and ethos. We may live in New York or Pretoria, but smile upon the genesis of our stubborn resilience. We love our histories and traditions, how our great grandfathers, in cool defiance, retired inland armed with little more than their Gods and their families to establish small settlements with the bursting potential of the greatest Western cities on the most desolate of continents.
 And although a guilt-ridden world had forsaken these sons and daughters, we are the last to refuse to bow to the tyranny of colonial guilt. We have no choice. Our Dutch agency found a new motherland. And when no European vocabulary could articulate what we found in Africa, we invented a language that could. Our first Afrikaans published female poet, Elisabeth Eybers, received both the Huygens and PC Hooft Prize in her lifetime, writing only in Afrikaans, while living in Amsterdam, Stadionkade. We are living proof of how prodigal sons and daughters make do with the resources at their disposal. We are that part of you that faced and conquered enemies (one being the British Crown), while not once enjoying the benefit of being the majority. This enthusiasm for challenge and thirst for adventure, we proudly attribute to you. We are no longer your responsibility, but for us that veritable naelstring can never be severed. But it is in the name of humanity and that shared sense of civilization, that we ask to be heard by anybody who cares to understand the unique context of our pain, origins of our neuroses, reasons for our compulsiveness and roots of our most dire decisions: a minority defending what was acquired dearly, traumatically and legitimately. You can understand this too.
 Although Europe now faces similar challenges, we today have already reached the final frontier. The point of no return. Our benevolent compromise for the sake of peace for all South Africans, amounted to nothing. We live in new surroundings with 700% more violent attacks than ever, one in eight ending in brutal murder. Our most defenseless family members endure the most gruesome physical maltreatment, tortuous hours of rape and degradation, mostly for little more than a purse or cell phone. Our proudest achievements and contributions to this continent is strangled by power politics disguised as transformation. This vile omission of merit has left this beautiful country nose-diving through every known achievement-index on the planet. We live in a new country with confounding statistics, the second most violent state in the world, a staggering mortality rate and a life expectancy lower than Uganda. It is today a higher-risk job to be an Afrikaner farmer than a member of the SA police force. But we also live in a country where the state defends hate speech chants in court, songs calling for the blood of Afrikaners (having lived with a level 6/8 warning by Genocide Watch). Nobody cares to discuss the genesis of black and white antagonisms for fear of exposing anything Afrocentrically incorrect.
We know that there exists no nation, race or tribe in the world that can not achieve anything. The question is not if they can? The question is if they did? They did NOT and can find no way through their Afrocentric arrogance and self-pity to admit this. Aggravating and mitigating factors would place all South Africans on the same side of the fault line, way out of reach of the moral high ground. The only solution is that of a Break-even Point, access to all, no more pallor-distinctions, no more second-rate citizens and then only that ideal of mutual respect for legacy and heritage of diverse ethnicities, tribes and nations.
This ideal has now completely slipped it’s moorings.
We ask for little more than to be heard.
Komaan, Holland. Julle gee te gou oor op die pioniersgene van jul eie stamboom. Ons deel voorvaders, ons deel hardekwas-gene, ons deel literatuur, ons deel een stamtaal en ons deel verset tot onderdanigheid. Ons Boere is jou berese siel. Julle het julleself vergeet as julle dink dat ons nie hier sal sterf vir die liefde van ons land, ons mense en ons erfenis nie.
 Steve Hofmeyr
Afrikaner Activist
23 Februarie 2012
http://www.facebook.com/Steve.Hofmeyr
http://twitter.com/steve_hofmeyr
|
|
Am I racist and should I care? |
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, 17 January 2012 19:00 |
|
 Everyone in South Africa – our planet’s designer raceless utopia - has called someone a racist one time or another. At this rate everybody will soon have been called a racist by someone somewhere. It’s supposed to be the ultimate debate-killer. When you call someone THAT, it should gag them in fits of shame and embarrassment. But this year some of our finest liberals, leaders, former Struggle heroes, democracy activists and non-racists have been nailed with this undesirable sobriquet.
Trevor Manuel, Minister in the Presidency, called ANC Spokesman, Jimmy Manyi, a racists “in the mould of HF Verwoerd” no less. But when they called Max du Preez (and Jacob Zuma, Julius Malema, David Bullard, Helen Zille, Darren Scott, Kuli Robberts) racist in 2011, I knew the ol’ insult had lost a lot of its former punch. Sure, we all blow off our prejudiced traps as often as possible, but Max Du Preez is about as black as white can be and his Struggle-cred is way beyond dispute.
Seems the last word on race debates have not been spoken. Yet. Either there are races or there are not. A Cape Town judge found in December 2011 that races do not exist. This is simply the left’s way of saying: everybody is equally guilty of everything. It is also the Anglo-multiculturists way of swallowing up other languages and cultures. And then there is the ANC’s ever-present neo-Apartheid BEE charts: government policies based on skin colour. While many sit and ponder the existence of races, some still see it all in a new light.
There ARE races and they do (today to a lesser degree) and did (almost entirely) differ. It is the work of the multiculturist and the liberal to keep denying that, pathology springing from old colonial guilt as well as first-nation lack of contribution to the world stage of development. When you drop off a tiny patch of West (let’s call them white) on the most Darkest Continent off all (let’s call them black), you get the mother clash of civilizations, customs and ideas. You call them black and white for lack of more convenient generalization.
Every time I, per discussion, without exception, dare to differentiate between races in South Africa, I get called a racist. In fact, a raceeeeest piiiiig! But memories are short. Racial is discussing race, where racism is discriminating on the grounds that yours benefit at the cost of others. For the New South African multiculturist, the opinion that both are taboo, is today seriously challenged. Maybe races do not matter elsewhere, but reading the global Gini co-efficient, it seems quite clear that nowhere in the world the clash of civilizations, of classes, traditions, culture, ethos, behaviour and income are so clearly demarcated by skin colour as here in South Africa. It’s not caused by skin colour, off course. That would be racist. When most of us discuss race, skin color per se means zip. Our punishment for hanging on to such archaic stereotypes is that we solve nothing. Pretty much where we are at right now. Where we’ve been all along. Nowhere. Even in my circles I have to search hard and long to still find old rightwing patrons of biology and bloodlines. You have to be blind (and untraveled) to think there exists on earth a race, nation or tribe without the capacity to achieve anything. The question is not can they? They certainly can. The question is did they? (This can never be answered as today it is the Afrocentric prerogative to decide when exactly history started).
Still, groups arrive at the debating line with a different momentum. I always found that quite beautiful. The South African slogan is tolerant of that: Unity in Diversity. Someone got it. But in our neuroses to show the world how unified we are, the facade has killed off reality: we are merely the world’s guinea pig for multiculturism, and we have failed. Like most European nations we suddenly doubt the unification of our currencies and our intensions. And the openness of our borders. We fall for the propaganda and live in denial of who we are because of who we were. In South Africa many Afrikaners now believe that Afrikaners do not exist.
I have stopped crying racist every time I come across one. Because in that insult lies locked up an even harsher truth. By calling others racist, you are effectively asking: why don’t you need me like I need you. It must be realized, that racism may be wrong and evil, but it is always the non-envious position. Racist are saying there is nothing you have to offer that I need, thank you. Why do you want to be defined as that tribe that nobody needed or wanted to stand close to? I hate BEE policies, excluding people of my race and tribe, bullying minorities into silence, fracturing family units for transcontinental opportunities, forcing South Africa’s white youth outside the borders for posts they qualify for but can’t have for being persons of pallor. But my reaction to that is changing.
I come from a pioneering people, not a parasitic people. We are entrepreneurs, not beggars. We never looked at those who are superior to us in defiance. We learned from them and incorporated those lessons to strengthen us. When we were down and out, we did not steal or murder. We made a plan. Other nations grew in numbers and stature under our rule and somehow we managed all this from a minority handicap.
When I am systematically marginalized by these charts and chats, I do what people of my pallor and tribe have always done: I make do without.
’n Boer maak ’n plan.
For more:
http://www.facebook.com/Steve.Hofmeyr
http://twitter.com/steve_hofmeyr |
|
|
|
|
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
|
|
Page 1 of 35 |
|
