About Zuma, that Venda bank, state capture – and the loss of consciousness

A interesting view by Khaya S Sithole, taken from his Facebook page

About Zuma, that Venda bank, state capture – and the loss of consciousness…
The second week in September reminds us of the death of Stephen Bantubonke Biko and the demise of Black Consciousness. This week marked the 39th anniversary of the assassination of Biko at the hands of the apartheid government. The most ironic element of this week is that the one individual whose consciousness of social and political dynamics borders on non-existent has created a new debate about black consciousness. Mr Jacob Zuma – the President of the Republic – has finally paid back the money in compliance with the Constitutional Court’s demand. But because the President has this wonderful gift of eliciting new dramas whatever he does – this was never going to be the end of the saga. In settling his R7,8 million bill, the President (presumably) approached the relatively obscure VBS Mutual Bank which – until this week – probably only 15 people had ever heard about. And that includes its 12 directors. I first encountered VBS in 2011 when I realised that one of my acquaintances was an executive at the institution. I was naturally intrigued by the bank and its history. And that’s where it ended. Until the President discovered the bank.
Central to the hysteria around the bank is the question of how a bank with a net profit of R4,9 million can advance a loan of R7,8 million (before initiation fees) to an individual post retirement age whose current employment contract is due to end in April 2019 – precisely 20 months into a 20-year bond. Then there is the question of affordability. It is a truth universally acknowledged that the President’s salary is around R240 000 per month and the National Credit Act – which Thabo Mbeki signed into law exactly 9 months after he fired Jacob Zuma – requires that the bank must conduct an affordability assessment before advancing any loan. As a benchmark, the monthly repayments on the loan should not exceed 30% of the loan applicant’s income. The fact that such an individual will be possibly unemployed soon is an additional condition to factor in. Because I’m a nice guy I am willing to concede that VBS Bank and its risk department did this assessment and concluded that the applicant will be able to service the loan. So the loan was approved – and the conditions are a matter between the President and the bank only so I shall venture no further in that regard.
Curiously the social network brigade is trying to figure out why the president bypassed all of the ‘acceptable’ banks and went for an unknown Venda bank whose greatest achievement so far appears to be the very brave colour scheme of its website (which has now become very famous obviously). The uncomfortable fact is that the PIC (an extension of the government) is a massive investor in VBS and advanced R300 million to the bank during the past year. In an ecosystem where the trust deficit between society and politicians is at its peak it is inevitable that there would be suspicions regarding this investment by the PIC. In addition to that, Bantu Holomisa (MP and reformed land grabber) has suggested that the rest of the undisclosed shareholding involves the chairperson of the ANC whose understanding of laws governing the country is the type of thing no one would invest in. The thing about discredited politicians however, is that they are famously incapable of prioritising research before firing allegations. And if you are the type of person that gets fired from the ANC by Nelson Mandela – your views Mr Holomisa are not exactly biblical in nature – so we shall discard them. For now…
The verdict that has therefore been delivered is that VBS is a random shell entity that knows nothing about banking and has been given taxpayers cash by a corrupt regime so they can help the President. In an age where the students are crying out for fees to fall, all such transactions are fuelling an already toxic mood around the country. And as expected, those great guardians of society – 702 and the financial press – have been in overdrive helping us all realise that this is yet another Zuma scandal that will consume our attention for months to come. I personally admire the ability of such guardians to ‘look out for us’ and save us from our own ignorance – long may they prosper. But I am troubled by the double standards at play here.
VBS Bank was founded in 1982 in an age when getting a licence for a black-owned bank in South Africa was a mission – it still is. They then focused their attention on providing financing for rural Limpopo communities; and this business model has been maintained ever since. The banking system in South Africa is currently dominated by 4 banks – Standard Bank; FirstRand; Nedbank and ABSA. These banks all have strange and confusing histories – none more bizarre than ABSA. Now for a start let’s all play a game. Let us pull a 702 face and assume that VBS has been bailed out by the PIC in yet another corruption scandal of the Zuma years, ok? Then let us assume that this is completely wrong and the PIC has been captured by the evil regime – ok? Then let us assume that the PIC has stolen taxpayer funds in order to facilitate this, ok so far? And then let us all agree that this scandal requires the intervention of John Robbie and the courts of public opinion – ok? So yeah, this is a shocking scandal and heads must roll. Somebody call the Public Protector. That’s point number one.
Now let us look at the alternatives. The president could have gone to ABSA and I am certain the loan application would have been declined. So he didn’t. ABSA would be justified in declining the application because ABSA and all the banks have to follow strict rules and regulations and everything that the Reserve Bank says. Good for ABSA. Now let us remember who ABSA is.
Back in 1918, the apartheid ancestors created a club called the Broederbond (think of it as an apartheid WhatsApp group). Part of the Broederbond’s mandate was to cultivate an economic and social climate for apartheid to thrive, and this included building banks, insurance companies and universities that would understand the Afrikaner mandate. Remember the National Party had 2 factions – the north made up of the Vaalies (Transvaal) and the southerners made up of the Cape faction. Such factions created cartels across the country that prohibited direct competition across themselves. In its glory days – the Broederbond economic structure created Sanlam in the Cape to focus on insurance – and Volkskas Bank located in the Vaal with the understanding that Sanlam would not go into banking and Volkskas would not go into insurance. Sanlam then funded Nasionale Pers (Naspers) to focus on the media capture in the Cape and the Transvaal faction had its own papers. The English had the mines through Cecil John Rhodes and Barney Barnato – so the Afrikaners commissioned Hendrik van der Bijl to move to the Vaal and create the industrial backbone of the apartheid state. He was the founding chairman of Eskom and created the Iron and Steel Corporation (Iscor) which recently agreed to pay R1,5 billion to the Competition Commission. (And yes – R1,5 billion is a special number to the National Party). Vanderbijlpark is named after him in honour of his genius. His protégé – the Stellenbosch-educated Etiene Rousseau – was given the mandate of starting up Sasol - which refused to make a profit so the state kept bailing it out. The sum of the bailouts to Sasol since its founding in 1950 are more than 3 times the bailouts granted to SAA and Dudu Myeni. Then it started going wrong.
Another prominent member of the Broederbond – Jan Marais – was tasked with opening up a new bank in the Cape that would focus on soliciting business outside of the Afrikaner network. The bank was named Trust Bank and made the silly mistake of allowing a certain Bill Mitchell to run the bank – and he messed it up. When Trust Bank went bankrupt the National Party decided that since Sanlam was not allowed to go into banking then Volkskas must bail out Trust Bank – and Volkskas refused and said the bank was a Cape problem and Sanlam should fix it. Sanlam then bought out Trust Bank, rebranded it as Bankorp and became a player in the banking market. In response – Volkskas then decided to go into insurance with the help of Anton Rupert – forming part of what we now call Momentum. In an attempt to punish Volkskas for the great betrayal, Sanlam decided that they wanted to move inland and destroy Volkskas and naturally instructed Naspers to lead the charge. Naspers moved into the Johannesburg territory and started the Beeld and Rapport newspapers which destroyed the Volkskas-backed newspapers until they were shut down. As part of the strategy, Sanlam’s new bank engaged in some risky lending and stole market share from Volkskas. Eventually, Volkskas gave up the fight and abandoned its ambitions to be a big bank.
Through these years, Bankorp was also struggling as a bank. Back in 1985, the Reserve Bank provided a ‘lifeboat’ (Dudu Myeni type of guarantee) of R300 million to Bankorp. 5 years later, the bank was in trouble again. But luckily for Bankorp, a guy named Chris Stals had been appointed as the governor of the Reserve Bank in 1989. Stals’ father had been a leader of the Broederbond and Chris was also a member. Chris invited Anton Rupert (Volkskas benefactor) to join the board of the Reserve Bank. Now the Reserve Bank is responsible for setting the rules for all the banks and treating them all equally. But because this is South Africa, Bankorp was ‘advised’ by Sanlam to request ‘assistance’ from the Reserve Bank. This was illegal. So in a carefully-structured transaction, Chris Stals used his discretion as the governor to advance R1.5 billion to Bankorp at an interest rate of 1% per annum. The only positive note from this is that the Reserve Bank actually consulted the Finance Minister in 1990 before transferring the R1.5 billion. Unfortunately, the Finance Minister at that time was Barend Jacobus du Plessis – whose brother (AS du Plessis) was a director of Sanlam (owners of Bankorp). Naturally the Finance Minister approved the transaction that bailed out his brother’s company. And just when it couldn’t get worse – the chairperson of Bankorp in 1990 responsible for signing off on this deal was Derek Keys – who then became the Finance Minister in 1992.
Bankorp took the R1,5 billion and split it into two. R1,1 billion was invested in government bonds that generated returns much higher than the 1% fee. And the R400 million? It was deposited with the same Reserve Bank that had provided the facility and the interest rate to be earned on the R400 million was a remarkable 16% per annum. Yes, the Reserve Bank borrowed Bankorp cash at 1% and then paid Bankorp 16% on the same funding that actually belonged to the Reserve Bank. Think about that for a moment.
The landscape shifted somewhat as soon as this deal was implemented in the winter of 1990. Volkskas and United Bank were merged and formed a new entity called ABSA. ABSA then bought Bankorp in 1992 and inherited the Reserve Bank deal and benefited from it until 23 October 1995. Chris Stals had been retained by the ANC as the governor of the Reserve Bank in 1994 and was confronted about why this deal was done. In his response – Stals stated that he had done the deal in order to save the banking system and to protect the rest of us (the Pravin defence). The net loss to the state from this transaction was over R15 billion which was made up of the benefit generated by Bankorp and ABSA plus the fact that they actually forgot to pay tax on the transaction (don’t ask whether SARS under Pravin tried to recover these taxes. Don’t ask). And Sanlam had an even greater benefit as they sold Bankorp to ABSA with the billions of the stolen money reflected as an asset – and the Finance Minister called Derek Keys approved the deal.
ABSA is one of the most profitable banks in South Africa and built its asset base through the theft of taxpayer funds. The problem with modern-day South Africa is that we now have Tito Mboweni and Trevor Manuel trying to save us all from state capture – the same finance Ministers who actually refused to force ABSA to pay back the money. Now imagine if VBS had been given the same lifeboat by the Reserve Bank in 1990. Would they be obscure today? VBS has committed to paying the PIC the R300 million it has borrowed. ABSA still has not paid the R300 million from 1985. And it still hasn’t repaid the R1,5 billion from 1990 because all our Finance Ministers keep forgetting to ask ABSA and Sanlam to pay back the money. In 2007, yet another report was commissioned by this government to look into the Sasol bailouts. The recommendation was that since Sasol had looted so much from the state in terms of bailouts, a once-off windfall tax amounting to all those billions should be paid to the state. Thabo Mbeki, Tito Mboweni and Trevor Manuel ignored that report.
Now just imagine if VBS had stolen just 10% of the funds looted by the Reserve Bank for the benefit of ABSA. Where would we be today?
Then there were the various role players in the saga. Danie Cronje was the CEO of Volkskas until it disappeared and then he took over as CEO of ABSA in 1993. When he quit as CEO in 1997, he became the chairperson of ABSA. Meanwhile, a certain Gill Marcus had been appointed as Trevor Manuel’s deputy in the finance ministry. In 1999, she left to join the Reserve Bank as Tito Mboweni’s Deputy when Chris Stals finally retired. Gill Marcus and Tito did not get along and she left in 2004 to work at Gibs and Western Areas (the Brett Kebble mining company). When Tito arrived at the Reserve Bank, he commissioned an inquiry into the Bankorp scandal and was advised to take action against ABSA and Sanlam to recover the recover the billions stolen through this saga. Thabo Mbeki, Trevor Manuel and Tito Mboweni forgot to adopt the commission’s recommendations. And no payment has ever been made. In 2007, Cronje retired as chairperson of ABSA and handed over to Gill Marcus with the approval of the finance Minister Trevor Manuel. At that stage, a certain Maria Ramos served on the board of Sanlam (old owners of Bankorp) and Remgro (owned by Johann Rupert – son of the benefactor of the Volkskas leg of the empire). In 2009, Gill Marcus appointed Maria Ramos – who is now Trevor Manuel’s wife – as the CEO of ABSA. 6 months later, Gill Marcus left ABSA and took over as the governor of the Reserve Bank replacing Tito Mboweni who then became the chairperson of AngloGold Ashanti – until he was replaced by – wait for it – Sipho Pityana.
So why does all of this matter? Well we need to have a frank conversation about these things. The greatest fear we have as a country these days is the looming ‘downgrade’ from which apparently only Pravin can save us. The ability of a country and a bank to borrow money is linked to its credit rating. A downgrade is a disaster that increases the cost of borrowing money so no one wants such a thing. The opposite of a downgrade is classification as ‘investment grade’. ABSA is rated as investment grade by all ratings agencies which allows them to borrow at low interest rates. VBS is not even rated by the 3 main ratings agencies and hence their cost of borrowing is much higher. SA banks can borrow money from the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank classifies banks into 3 categories – A1, A2 and A3. A1 banks get the best rates and A3 banks get the worst interest rates. ABSA is classified as A1. VBS is A3. Pension funds are only allowed to invest funds in entities that have been rated by the main ratings agencies. ABSA is rated investment-grade and all pension funds are allowed to invest in ABSA – and they do. No pension fund invests in VBS. Back when I was in banking, VISA had the world’s biggest IPO where all the banks that were part of the VISA payment system were rewarded with a financial windfall in 2007. ABSA benefitted; VBS did not. ABSA has 16% black ownership and 6% black management; VBS has 99% black ownership and 93% black management – but the government banks with ABSA. ABSA has an 80% black client base – and only 16% black ownership. VBS has 99% black ownership – black people call it the president’s corrupt piggy bank. Halala Gumede recently asked me why black people haven’t started their own bank yet – and I figured out that the Reserve Bank would never grant anyone a licence to open a black bank. You all claim to be the ‘woke’ generation. And yet the ability to believe in your own people doesn’t exist. So just before you call in to John Robbie’s show tomorrow to trash VBS Mutual Bank – please ask yourself where VBS would be if they had been allowed to steal billions from the Reserve Bank – just like ABSA. Then you can call in to 702. John Robbie and Eusebius will be waiting.
Yesterday I visited the offices of the Black Business Council in Rosebank where someone asked me what my views are regarding #FeesMustFall. So I stated that the government doesn’t need to struggle with raising the money to fund university education. The combined market capitalisation of ABSA and Sanlam at 5 pm yesterday was R251 billion. All the government needs to do is get Sanlam and ABSA to pay back the money stolen from the Reserve Bank. I can even volunteer to calculate the amount due using the interest rate of 15% (the difference between the 16% return to ABSA/Sanlam and the 1% charged by the Reserve Bank).
1985 loan – R300 million at 15% using simple interest for 31 years is R1,395 billion – and that is just the interest only with no compounding involved.
1990 loan – R1,5 billion at 15% for 26 years is yet another R5,85 billion – and that’s just the interest. The sum of the 2 interest payments is R7,245 BILLION. Then we can ask for the capital of R1,8 billion to be returned. And did I mention all the taxes and penalties SARS needs to charge on this transaction – backdated to 31 years ago? So Mr Blade Nzimande – I have found you a R9 billion solution without even trying. And I can accompany you to the ABSA building, I am available at very short notice.
And you modern-day fans of black consciousness thought VBS and its R7,8 million loan was a problem? In which planet?

http://www.gov.za/…/ww…/files/gov_panelexperts_bankorp_0.pdf

Curro School and it's racism

This a originally by Khaya S Sithole. Taken from his Facebook wall.

"In 2002, Bridget Majola delivered a speech titled 'The condition of native is a nervous condition'. Since then, my interpretation of racial discourse has been influenced by the appreciation that removing the physical & structural manifestations of racism is nothing more than a tentative step towards fixing the problem. What remains an enduring challenge is to enable the mind of one race to acknowledge its scope of privileges & inherent advantages that exist within a broken society. Until there is transformation of the mind itself - the concept of discrimination persists. Curro School recently found itself at the epicentre of racial tension due to its policy of splitting students on the basis of 'language' (the linguistic defence to racism). So naturally - Curro decided to fix its racist image by creating a 'Zulu Day' at their Hillcrest campus. Then it went wrong. Curro decided to tell its white students that on this Zulu day, they needed to collect all their gardeners & domestic workers & bring them to the school. (The ability to avoid vomiting as I write this is a testimony to my elevated capacity for tolerating nonsense).
5 weeks ago, I stormed out of an AGM when 1 eminent member decided to express that white people couldn't give a damn about transformation. Days later, one of my brighter students highlighted that the problem was not primarily the man himself but the fact that he & I were part of a forum that had made him believe that such statements were acceptable to begin with.
How Curro has managed to exist within such an utopia of manufactured ignorance is a problem with Curro itself - & an even bigger problem with a society that has allowed Curro to believe that racial reconciliation simply requires them to teach children that a grand parade of black workers onto a campus they could never afford is the 'racism fix'.
That's the easy part. The challenging part of this is that if I had started off this diatribe by saying '100 gardeners & domestic workers were in my office this morning...' - every honest black person reading that statement would expect the 100 to be black. So who is more damaged in this society?"

Now this me of the blog I did not so long ago "Racism is a White Problem"

Don’t give away your gift of monogamy.

Guys have options. Why can’t girls have options? Don’t get me wrong, I am not promoting “ubufebe” here but i'm saying Feba nge order, anyway it’s an honest question. There’s no rule against it right? So why are we judging girls with options and high 5 guys with options, that’s not fair.

I certainly believe (sometimes) that a girl is allowed to have options as with guys.

So many heartbreaks, so many heartaches and this could all be prevented by less labelling and having options. If girls took time to choose the right partner, the heartbreak problem is solved, you probably wondering, “what does he mean, all guys and nice and cute during courtship” Well, every girl likes atleast 3 guys, so if one of those guys started asking you out and end up dating… flirt with the other guy that you like and date him, but you don’t have to sleep with guy number 2, he is there for comfort and make you feel good about yourself and whilst doing that he shows you the real him that you end up really loving but you still have guy number 1, relax though and stay calm.

Loving 2 people is easy but choosing the one you fall inlove with is not your decision to make, it just happens.

So back to guy 1 and guy 2… a NICE pair of shoes and a spare…where am I going with this? You can always fit in guy 3 for fun…THERE’S NO WAY to find a perfect man, he doesn’t exist but you could at least try find a good man, we exist in these 3 guys ....ok 2 guys...oh well . Anyway between a pair of shoes and a spare you certainly can be able to find the right man. Yes you can have time for all three darling, because the one who has the most power is the one who is less emotionally driven…You been hurt for too damn long by now you should be able to control your damn feelings.

Ad Break: It’s good to date outside you comfort zone.

Anyway, 3 guys neh, or two, but two is too few. So you have guy 1 right and you guys are cute and stuff but you flirt with 2 and date him. So, now rotate guy 1 and make him guy 2 and guy 2 make him guy 1, you basically rotate the one you like less to a desirable position, as you get familiar with guy 3, rotate him and make him guy 1, by doing this guy one gets more attention all the time and you have guy 2 and 3 vying for your attention and your self esteem will sure damn level out.

Ad Break: get rid of your dating “musts”

So you keep rotating these guys until you find you favourite and drop 1 and leave two. Until you find you favourite in the last two.

The most important reason to date multiple men is …………..(quick ad Break: sleep with two incase one sucks in bed)………the number one way to find what you looking for, best way to avoid settling with a dick of a guy and a “must”have…Yazi futhi lendaba yo “must have is the one cause of heartbreak, you settle for nonsense that isn’t emotionally good for you but because you already have this mental list in your head of a “must have” you settle. Dumb girl. 

Anyway, the power of choice is important and dating multiple guys will help you find that one person that is great for you.

Don’t give away your gift of monogamy.

Feba nge order.

What are some productive ways to initiate and engage in dialogue with others on issues of racism?

Funny how black people end up being accused of being racist by white people when issues of race arise. It seems as if this is tiring for white people in South Africa who want us to forget and get over it. White people accuse black people of playing the race card therefore act racist without even realizing it as they comment on the subject matter using words like “grow up and get over it”

Until we learn to have open and safe dialogue about these issues in South Africa, we won’t grow as a society. The institution of racism will continue to permeate our culture and paternalistic “white supremacy” will continue to dominate our society. I feel we must all accept responsibility for our culture and society- especially white people who are, by colour of skin, the privileged group of people in South Africa. Until this fear of losing “white culture” is eradicated, racism will not die. It must die. The fear of losing "white privilege" needs to die. Don't claim equality with your ''white privilege" cap on.

You probably wondering what do I mean by “the privileged group”, well If you look at important bodies like the Reserve Bank, the Justice courts, or at the CEO list of major corporations, or at any other body that wields substantial power in South Africa., you will count only a few black faces (and in some cases, none).  Out of the number of black faces you count, most of them will not be representing the views of the majority of black people in this country, but the views of the white minority.

One may ask; what are some productive ways to initiate and engage in dialogue with others on issues of racism?

I think that the first thing to do, especially if you are white, is to educate yourself on what racism is, and what it isn't. Become familiar with the history of racism in South Africa, when engaging in dialogue with others on issues of racism be prepared to encounter defensiveness, denial, and strong emotional response. It is also helpful to begin with common understandings such as a glossary of terms: racism, privilege, institutional racism, white supremacy.

It might also be helpful to confront the main issues that create conflict first; definition of racism (prejudice +power), that reverse racism does not exist, The right wing popularized the term "Reverse Racism" because they were really angry at having their white privileges challenged. Anyone who uses that phrase, whether they are right wing or not, furthers the right wing's cause.  This is what I tell black and white apartheid apologists and progressives who I hear using the term. What white privilege is and how it is expressed in one’s daily life and manifests itself in educational institutions, in workplaces and so on.

In dealing with racism, it is important to first understand certain terms and their meaning as described by Tim Wise; 

Prejudice is an irrational feeling of dislike for a person or group of persons, usually based on stereotype.  Virtually everyone feels some sort of prejudice, whether it's for an ethnic group, or for a religious group, or for a type of person like blondes or fat people or tall people.  The important thing is they just don't like them -- in short, prejudice is a feeling, a belief.  You can be prejudiced, but still be a fair person if you're careful not to act on your irrational dislike.

Discrimination takes place the moment a person acts on prejudice.  This describes those moments when one individual decides not to give another individual a job because of, say, their race or their religious orientation.  Or even because of their looks (there's a lot of hiring discrimination against "unattractive" women, for example).  You can discriminate, individually, against any person or group, if you're in a position of power over the person you want to discriminate against.  White people can discriminate against black people, and black people can discriminate against white people if, for example, one is the interviewer and the other is the person being interviewed.

Racism, however, describes patterns of discrimination that are institutionalized as "normal" throughout an entire culture. It's based on an ideological belief that one "race" is somehow better than another "race".  It's not one person discriminating at this point, but a whole population operating in a social structure that actually makes it difficult for a person not to discriminate.  

Far too often you have meanings of these English words redefined to satisfy the offender because as a white person he feels discriminated against or prejudiced and therefore calls it racism, this justification is a result of white privilege.

Racial incidents happen daily in South Africa. We will not get over it and we will not stop talking about it because it somehow offends your inner racist and turn around and say not everything is about race. It's very easy as an offender to defend the indefensible and not realise that what you are actually doing is really saying racism is ok. Deal with it and accept it.

It's amazing to read or listen to white people telling black people what should and what shouldn't offend them. It's easy to say it while you sitting on the chair with #WhitePrivilege on the back.  It is very easy to not take offence when the offence is not directed to you. It is very easy to say not everything is about race when the offender is white.

How do white people come to a conclusion on deciding what shouldn't offend black people? I'm actually very curious. Maybe one of you will shed some light in the comments before telling me to grow up and get over it.

I wonder.

In a racist society like ours where white people bend over to defend racist act and tell us to get over it, it takes a special act of courage and willingness from a white person to subject oneself to scandal or danger to step outside that system and become an abolitionist. It's not the "fault" of every member of the “master class” that black people were faced with oppression and racism and some might wish it was gone.  But the fact is that every single member of the “master class” benefits from the cheap labour of black people at every level of society. Benefitted from their blood flowing in the streets of South Africa . So unless members of the “master class” rise up and oppose the Institutionalized system of racism and try to overthrow it they're going to be complicit in the Institutionalized system of racism.

It is obvious that many Whites believe that not even racism, but race itself is something that has nothing to do with them, as if White is not also a “race.” On racism, many will refer to it as “your cause” when speaking to someone Black, as if racism does not involve Whites at all. Also, there are Black people who think that we alone can end racism, or should at least ignore it. Not ignoring it is deemed “making excuses” and “not taking responsibility” by exceptional Black people (such as celebrities) using “create your own opportunities and lift yourselves up” arguments to appease whites. Whites conveniently do not have to “take responsibility” for racism though Black people are supposed to “take responsibility” for the ways racism impacts our lives, while simultaneously not mentioning racism being there in the first place.

So "get over it and move on" is the most ridiculous of positions. Racism is not some tragic event to get over; it's the ongoing tragedy of cumulative experiences that shape how one sees the world. Moreover, stereotypical imagery affects all who see it, not just the lampooned race. The negative images of blacks, whether old blackface minstrel or today's portrayals as criminal, promiscuous, and foolishly materialistic, are an equal opportunity influencer - everyone is impacted by their repeated viewing. 

My cultural crisis...

My Constitutional crisis

Ok, as a Zulu man I am faced with a constitutional crisis of sorts. I grew up under the distinct and unquestionable impression that there is a particular dichotomy between the sins of our fathers and the curiosity of young minds. Simply put, no amount of infantile curiosity could ever warrant the interrogation of the actions of an elder. So if my grandfather decided that we should all sleep at 5 p.m. because he has said so (regardless of any homework commitments) then it shall be so. On the odd occasion that one dared question authority then the attendant punishment often resembled something so revered by the lynch-mobs of the Ku Klux Klan, except this was black-on-black punishment disbursed under the mystical guise of love and discipline. This obviously worked for most of my peers as my generation is perhaps the last black generation that still practices those age-old habits of respecting the elders and complying with the code of conduct prescribed by the community. The importance of the hierarchy of respect within the black community cannot be disputed. There is always something tragically upsetting to watch a 4-year old hooligan argue with her mother in a supermarket regarding some meaningless pretext or the other, and an even greater sense of shame when the inept parent then yields to the demand of the classless brat. I always look on such episodes with condescending curiosity. Is it merely because ‘new age’ black kids are now being raised in the liberal, laissez-faire social atmosphere so lamented upon by George Orwell in 1984? Are the new blacks ever so eager to disassociate themselves with the traditional and apparently backward-looking methods of rearing kids in a world so intent on hurtling us all forward towards a future of neo-liberalism? The greatest inheritance of black society in South Africa has always been the militant commitment to respecting one’s elders. It may be said that without such an approach in which one child had an indisputable duty to respect all elders within the community equally then the black community would slide into anarchy of sorts.
There remains something particularly awkward in the boardrooms that I am exposed to when the blacks have to address a direct question and then promptly fail to make eye-contact with the other parties. This is simply because it is a minor scandal for a black person to stare directly into the eyes of another during conversation. This may be interpreted as confrontational and rather aggressive. With the other cultures however, it is the most critical element of honesty, probity and transparency in a conversation to maintain good eye-contact. Failing to make eye-contact gives undertones of evasiveness, self-doubt and perhaps an element of dishonesty. A few years ago I was tasked with hosting a few matric students who were to be presented to various sponsors for interviews. On the eve of the interviews, I then undertook to prepare the students for the interviews by simulating the potential scenarios. 2 of the individuals were from that fortress of Zulu traditions- Nongoma. During the simulated interview, these individuals never at once looked up into the face of the mock-interviewers. They were firmly of the opinion that to do so would be a scandalous betrayal of all they had been bought up to be. Unfortunately, they were interviewed by 2 white individuals who could never understand how on earth they should ever sponsor people who lacked the temerity to ever look them in the face. Inasmuch as some may overlook this distinction (excuse the pun) it remains the most obvious example of the mild socio-cultural conflicts so prevalent in our modern society. In South Africa’s case this is even more complicated as we pledge allegiance to a vast number of difference cultures and the related behaviours. What binds these multi-faceted cultures together is an observance of the most important document produced in the republic since the Freedom Charter; the Constitution of the Republic, fondly knows as Act 108 of 1996.
Under the provision of this Act we are all South Africans and indeed every single culture is duly recognised. That means that the Hindu culture enjoys the same privileges, stature and importance afforded to the Zulu, Xhosa or Afrikaans culture. Furthermore, the same Act supports a system of governance known as democracy which among other things, recognises the rights of the Fourth Estate (commonly known as the media) to exist and indeed make its presence felt. And that is the essence of my crisis. No lesser a man than Mr Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma (I tried to say Honourable, really) is the president of the Republic. This means that he is not the custodian of the Zulu culture but of all cultures in the Republic. He is not the messiah of the Christians in South Africa but the custodian of all religious creeds in the country. As the chief custodian of the Constitution it unfortunately falls within his mandate to ensure that all races, religions, cultures, practices, traditions and preferences enjoy equal acceptance and the liberty to practice their freedoms of association, speech, mobility and the fundamental right of every individual to call himself a citizen of South Africa.
So here I am sitting with a group of individuals who are of the opinion that nothing he does is beyond public scrutiny. No element of his life can be separated into private versus public. Furthermore, such individuals are indeed of the opinion that in their own cultures, people have to earn respect rather than claim it as a historical inheritance. Such people are of the conviction that if you believe a public figure is acting in a manner unbefitting his stature then the Constitution grants you the right to question such actions and demand responses or restitutions. The notion that we are all Africans is an important issue here. Are we Africans based on the depth of our cultural inheritances or is this merely an ideology imposed upon all South Africans by the geographical and constitutional mandates? The ridiculous notion of freedom of speech means that I actually have a right to trash-talk any practice I take exception to. This means that whoever forms the opinion that Zulus are indeed steeped in sensuality and vice is actually allowed to state such reservations without fear of prosecution. We saw this issue come to play regarding the killing of the bull incident last year. Bizarrely, the courts were asked to rule on the barbaric nature of the practice and yet no such ruling was demanded from the people who, by virtue of questioning such a practice, actually brought into question the validity of its existence which is amazingly enough a violation of the constitution itself.
Inevitably, the Zulu culture has come in for some harsh criticism and ridicule of late and I for one feel hamstrung to defend it. This is simply because if I as an individual believe that my culture is being misrepresented by an elder then I should be able to defend it except for one minor problem; if I am to obtain an explanation from an elder regarding why he is misrepresenting my culture then I am questioning his actions which is well, err, a complete violation of the culture I would be claiming a defence of. This is precisely why we as Zulus feel ill-at-ease questioning why Mr Zuma could ever adopt optional practices and then rebrand them as cultural imperatives. This simply lacks substance as I have now been asked whether any Zulu man who fails to take multiple wives is infact a half-Zulu eager to betray his own cultural practices. How do you respond to that?
There is a school of thought that has formed the opinion that perhaps the Constitution of the Republic is actually incompatible with the African practices it seeks to defend. There can be no doubt that the constitution mandates accountability from the head of state but there is absolutely no way a Zulu person could ever ask the president to explain his aversion to condoms and whatever else he seems reluctant to adopt. That the constitution can promote equality and still make allowances for arranged marriages and polygamy flies in the face of common sense. If a group of individuals can sue a particular cultural group for practicing its culture then surely the constitution itself is breeding the confusion by stating that all such cultures must co-exist? More importantly, does this allegiance I am pledging to my Zulu culture and its reluctance to confront elders amount to a form of self-censorship? With this in mind, who exactly is going to defend the culture itself against verbal scrutiny and hysterical attacks if the culture itself makes little allowance for any debate with the elders which would infact, furnish us with the ammunition to lodge a logical defence in the name of the Zulus and their culture? 

Written by Khaya S Sithole
Twitter: @CoruscaKhaya 

White Privilege in South Africa

White privilege was legally enshrined in South Africa through apartheid, which lasted formally into the 1990s. Under a7partheid, racial privilege was not only socially meaningful—it became bureaucratically regulated. Laws such as the 1950 Population Registration Act established criteria to officially classify South Africans by race: White, Indian, Coloured (mixed), or Black.

Many scholars argue that 'whiteness' still corresponds to a set of social advantages in South Africa, and conventionally refer to these advantages as "white privilege". The system of white privilege applies both to the way a person is treated by others and to a set of behaviors, affects, and thoughts, which can be learned and reinforced. These elements of "whiteness" establish social status and guarantee advantages for some people, without directly relying on skin color or other aspects of a person's appearance. White privilege in South Africa has small-scale effects, such as preferential treatment for people who appear white in public, and large-scale effects, such as the over-fivefold difference in average per-capita income for people identified as white or black.

If I was a White South African. These would be my #WhitePrivileges

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.

11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.

12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.

14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.

17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.

18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.

19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.

24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.

25. If a traffic cop pulls me over I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.

26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children's magazines featuring people of my race.

27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.

28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.

29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.

30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.

31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.

32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race.

34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.

37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.

38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.

39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.

40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.

43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.

44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions which give attention only to people of my race.

45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.

46. I can chose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.

47. I can travel alone or with my partner without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who deal with us.

Women and Other things.

To many typical cases of pseudo-intellectualism involve pre-pubescent "15" year olds that think they have everything figured out, including, but not limited to: life, religion, politics, education, relationships and sex. Ironically, they have never quite experienced either of the aforementioned. 

Lemme share something with you about men but before I do never ever assume you understand and know men because they act different around you, don't come here with that bullshit yokuthi "Only boys think like that". Mina i say to you, when men are with other men. You'd probably faint if you eavesdropped a convos between your fathers and uncles, amazing. Stop claiming you know men, you know their dicks, men will always show the "other-side" in a company of women and strangers.

Anyway...next 

Go through "things" does not make you an expert. You crossed that path but that does not necessarily mean that you understand men. Stop bullshitting yourself, it's not cute.

As much as men have tried to figure out what women want, women think they have figured out what men want. Which is very interesting. One reads a lot blogs when pre-pubescent teens write and tweet about love, relationships and so forth. They somehow think that because they dated 15 guys, loved one screwed over by 14 they're now expert. Wait a minute. You experienced in dick not love. 

Anyway...next

THIS is why you can't find a steady relationship! It's YOU! You're unstable! Yeah, you like to call your shallow inconsistency, "impulsiveness"... Call it whatever the hell you want. Fact is, you've had at LEAST 4 fucking "flavours-of-the-month" in the short time and you think gonna find a man with all that baggage? 

Anyway... next subject

What pisses me off is women who constantly bitch and moan about how they don't like to be used as sex objects. If you feel like that, fine but you girls  have to realize that that goes both ways. You don't want to be treated like prostitutes well you have to stop acting like a prostitute. Start treating men like actual human beings and not as a means for financial gain, and maybe you will get a little respect every now and then. You want to know why you get stuck with the ass holes. Because when it comes to picking men, your priorities are assed backwards. You claim you want to be treated with with respect, then stop meeting men at clubs. You say you want a man who is working but if that guy at work who drives a Toyota looks at you too hard, you cry sexual harassment. But yet you break your neck for that bad-boy with his grandpa's Merc whose idea of a job is going to visit Tops often, who doesn't have respect for himself let alone you. You let him mooch off of you. You let him in with based on his looks or the size of his penis. Knowing damn well when you met him he didn't have a job. You knew he was an alcoholic when you met him at the bar and for every one drink he bought you he bought himself three. You knew he slept around because when you fucked him he had a wife,a mistress and three girlfriends. You knew that he was only going to use you for sex because he couldn't keep his eyes of your titties and his hands off your ass, but you fucked him anyway.You thought you could change him. And when you found out that you couldn't you say ALL MEN ARE SCUM/PIGS/DOGS or whatever else.

Girls make me sooo angry! Why do they make me angry? I'll tell you. It's because they sneak up on you when you're doing okay- never great, but stable mind you- and then they rough you up and get you thinking of bigger and better things than your previous loneliness. Then- just when you're starting to smile for no reason- they crap all over you. And the best part is, the good ones don't even realize they're doing it. I'm holding my heart in my hands and she's got no idea...

Girls do whine, moan, cry, and bitch about everything. To women everything is feminist, it pisses me off, how they can get any of us in trouble by lying and saying we are discriminating women. But, women do bring everything upon themselves, they do act like sexual objects and later on bitch on how men treat them. I am also very pissed on how women are allowed to organize bullshit rallies and claim a sexist crime to get what they want, and the other bitches(women) in office allow them to and give them whatever they want. But, what would happen if Men were to hold some rallies against anything or maybe lie about a sex crime, that's right all hell breaks loose, and they are seen as pigs. Stop with your feminist anti- men bullshit and go back to washing dishes and gardening.

Anyway...i'm out