Zuma sang Kill the Boer in Bloemfontein
18 January 2012 Leave a comment
Zimbabwean journalist Caesar Zvayi writes on 11 January 2012 in his column that ‘the ANC needs to Kill the Boer because that’s the only way that power will be theirs…’ He describes the gusto with which Zuma sang ‘Kill the Boer’ with Julius Malema nodding approvingly from the VIP stage…
Being one of the few Zimbabweans who got the chance to join the ANC in celebrating 100 years of existence in Mangaung, I stubbornly refuse to call it Bloemfontein, let me take this opportunity to wish my South African brothers a happy anniversary.
I hope you will have another 100 years of bringing meaningful change to the lives of the poor people in Kayelitsha, Alexandra and many other slums whose inhabitants do not hear, but listen to Letta Mbulu’s classic hit, Not Yet Uhuru.
This powerful ditty not only captures the tragedy of many African countries that got the crown minus the crown jewels; but South Africa’s unique condition of being a political and socio-economic binary.
In Mzansi the white minority has a stranglehold on the means of production while for many freedom, not independence, has just meant seeing black faces in government which explains the anger among the likes of Julius Malema. Well it is not my place to try to spoil the spirit of the centenary. A hundred cheers to my fellow brothers!
In his address in Mangaung, ANC president Jacob Zuma rightly paid tribute to countries in southern Africa and many others as far afield as Cuba and the Nordic countries for the crucial role they played in bringing freedom to South Africa.
United States and Britain abetted apartheid: so why do Westerners celebrate Mandela as if they believed in his case?
Its worth noting that in his 56 page speech, Msholozi made no mention of the countries that today pass themselves off as the originators and defenders of neo-liberal democracy the United States and Britain for rather than abet South Africa’s cause for independence, these countries actually abetted apartheid.
They violated the sanctions the UN had imposed on the apartheid regime, and continued to trade and consort with the murderous regime. The US in fact went a step further by placing the ANC and its leadership on sanctions after declaring them terrorists.
The administration of Ronald Reagan opposed formal sanctions on apartheid South Africa, preferring to exert quiet pressure to speed up reform.But the demand for sanctions could not be quieted, and in 1986 the US Congress overrode a presidential veto to ban the importation of South African goods and prohibit American business investments in South Africa. Nelson Mandela, whose legacy the Anglo-Saxons have sought to expropriate by turning him into a virtual mascot for politically correct photo opportunities, was deemed a terrorist by the US State Department as late as the run-up to his 90th birthday in 2008. US president George W Bush had to issue an executive order to have Mandela and the ANC leadership off the sanctions list before July 18, 2008.
Be that as it may, the bottom line is Uncle Sam was an enemy of democracy in South Africa as evidenced by his opposition to Mandela’s quest for freedom, and this should put his sanctions on Zimbabwe, its leadership and other people into perspective.
But the question is why do westerners embark on this charade of celebrating Mandela as if they believed in his cause? Why did they erect his statue in Piccadilly Square? What is it that happened between February 11, 1990, the day Madiba ambled out of prison and 1999, the year he left office that so endeared him to westerners?
The answer is simple Madiba, after taking the baton from the other nine ANC presidents before him, did not upset the apple cart. He was content to have the crown minus the crown jewels, and in so doing became the typical good African who does not pose “an unusual and extraordinary threat to US foreign policy” unlike his counterpart north of the Limpopo. For in imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe, the US made it clear that the sanctions were being imposed because “Zimbabwe constituted an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States.” This is the text of Executive Order 13188 that the US president uses to extend the sanctions every year.Contrary to western rhetoric and grandstanding the sanctions were not imposed to promote democracy and good governance in Zimbabwe but to subvert democracy whether in its expansive or minimalist form.
So what is my point?
My point is South Africans who have become notorious for something called “xenophobia” should know that while their freedom was a regional effort, it certainly is not the responsibility of the region to transform that freedom from the political to the economic dimension.
Beating and hacking your brothers to death simply because you are out of a job or slept on an empty stomach will not change your condition as long as your leadership chooses to quote and implement only the preamble of the Freedom Charter that goes “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black or white . . .”
The absence of Westerners in the tributes Zuma paid to ‘all who helped SA to the path to freedom tells us who is for, and who is against us…
They should not pay lip to the rest of the charter that inspired patriots to lay down their lives to defeat apartheid. The absence of the westerners in the tributes Zuma paid to all who helped South Africa on the path to freedom should tell us all who is for and who is against us.
But for me the enduring memory of the centenary was not the counter-flow of Afrikaners who drove out of Mangaung as the “black peril” from Soweto drove in; nor the enthusiasm and jubilation of ANC members of all ages who turned Mangaung into a sea of black, green and yellow.
For me, the enduring memory was that moment Jacob Zuma ended his 56-page speech with the thunderous slogan, “Amandla!” to which the crowd responded with an equally deafening “Ngawethu!”
The lasting memory was when Zuma’s voice filtered from the giant stadium speakers doing justice to the anti-Apartheid song, “Dubula ibhunu! (Kill the Boer)” Yes that song that the South Africa Supreme Court tried to kill by declaring it “hate speech” rolled off Zuma’s lips as Malema nodded along on the VIP stage.
I puffed out my chest, and lip-synced even though I do not even know a single stanza. For me Zuma’s rendition of that song showed there is hope for the ANC over the next 100 years. They need to kill the Boer, metaphorically that is, for that is the only way the power (amandla) can be theirs!
Copyright © 2012 The Herald. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). (so sue me!) See Article
The results of this hatespeech above: crime maps identifying attacks against whites in South Africa (left) since January 2009; and crime-map detailing xenophobic attacks against other SA minorities, right:
I like it when people write alongated rubbish with no substance proving the point that empty shells make the most noise. It’s my opion that the writer of this article thus not live in Zimbabwe anymore but is enjoying the fruit of the South African democracy. I pray that our leaders do not let the same ideas criple our democracy. To have been part of the struggle you would no that the song “kill the boer” was aimed at the capitalist regime that was ruling us ‘cause we had white anti apartheid acticist signing the same song. Malema lost his court case because he had no clue of what the song meant. Let’s be honest he was only 10 when Mandela was released. Zimbabwe is what it is today cause it is led by the same capitalist regime although its an african. I still remember one song “a injury to one is and injury to all and a victory to one is a victory to all” and thus meant all South Africans. All our leaders before Mandela died poor cause the people they served was poor. Maybe our new leaders are serving the rich. O six ufana no nine!
Author: jeffjedi06 Thu Jan 12 03:02:35 2012
the truth is again twisted. Malema is an idiot – a dictator in the making if allowed. The idiot author fails to note that if it were not for the multitude of other nationals in Africa – and we see it in zimbabwe that Africa will decend into war and tribalism again. historians wonder why there are Zimbabwe ruins and what happened to the prosperous people that built them – and why they were destroyed – but the answer is before our very eyes, we as a people cant help but destroy civilisation – we also seem to want to have to go back to the brutal tribal system. Mugabe and ZANUPF are good examples of this – having inherited the best country in African they have crippled it into ruin for their own self inrichment. They have taken the national air carrier and ruined it so that it does not work, ruined the currency so that it is now gone and stolen the bsuiness and wealth from the “haves” to ZANUPF’s. As i said before we will go back to ox sleds soon. Maybe we have forgotten the shortages for petrol of the past? The shortages of electricity. The shortages of water and the rest. Just maybe if the likes of Malema are allowed in a few years time we will be able to go and see the ruins of Johannesburg (and the last time I was in the city it was already a ghetto state) just like we go to see Zimbabwe ruins. But that is African progress – backwards.
Author: Phiri Fri Jan 13 03:46:50 2012
I agree with you that Malema is an idiot and a disgrace for the ANC. However, I disagree with you that Zimbabweans inherited the best country after independence. The truth of the matter is that the Liberation movement inherited a country whose land was controlled by 5% of white Rhodesians, with low levels of education and business was predominately white minority. The legal system focused entirely on protecting this very priviledged and white minority groups. The Rhodesian econmy had stopped growing as a result of successions. Yes, we have Mugabe and all the problems, but after independence, Zimbabweans became the most literate Africans on the content, the economy expanded more than the predominately white minority economy. And finally, the black majority had a shot at owning land. The business class today in Zimbabwe reflect the majority. Trade has expanded in Southern Africa post Ian Smith regime. IT IS A MYTH THAT THINGS WERE BETTER FOR BLACKS DURING IAN SMITH!!!
Author: kjrs120 Fri Jan 13 11:29:49 2012
Phiri, I hate to burst your bubble because I believe in reality. Just because the country was run by the minority whites with an agenda against blacks does not mean that it was not well run. Come on now. The Africans certainly inherited a beautiful, well maintained and well-run country. Everything was set in place and all you had to do was to maintain and grow. Your roads had tarmac that glittered in the sun, buses in and out of town were galore, clinics and great main hospitals such as the Old Memorial which was replaced by the Perirenyatwa, Harare, St Annes, The Princess Margaret, Mpilo, Bulawayo Central Hospital, Richard Morris, the Ngutcheni and other country hospitals which produced nurses second to none, ready made farms for the taking and all those beautiful homes that you took over when whites left. Man you had it made, but you blew it.
Author: jeffjedi06 Mon Jan 16 03:21:44 2012
Zimbabwe had it all, just needed to manage it properly. Now we have idiots like the president of the war vets spouting about the whites – and what they did. The man was 9 years old in the war – he was nothing – just a zealot. Not even a real vet who fought in the war. I know that most of the so claimed vets were 6 and 7 at the time. Hell i am nearly sixty so I know. so please when we say Mugabe ruined a country we mean that and if it wasnt fr all the other nationals involved Malema and the rest will live in ruins gain just like Zimbabwe.
Author: odysseus221 Fri Jan 13 13:57:30 2012
How interesting that the focus of everything is on the Boer for freedom! Yes indeed it seems that the power of speech is more important than reality! The reality of White and Black has to do with history but the future has to do with ability. To create a future one need not disable the contenders but empower them. This is something both the ANC and the Boer cannot understand because they are caught up in an economic philosophical debate that belongs on the dusty bookshelves of ideology and an idealism that wants more create an image rather than a reality.