"Some Africans Who Become Too Clever"

Here is the first draft of the piece that appeared under Mbuyiselo Botha and my name in the City Press of 11 November 2012.

First, though, I should say that the piece is a response to these impromptu remarks by President Jacob Zuma in his address to the National House of Traditional Leaders on the Traditional Courts Bill in Cape Town on November 1, 2012. 

In his remarks Zuma makes an ill-advised departure from his prepared text, perhaps betraying his real beliefs and insecurities about critical, or educated, or smart, or unruly blacks. It is the phrase he used to characterize critical black citizens as ‘Africans who become too clever’ that I found objectionable and moved me to respond to him. When, one must ask, did being intelligent become a swearword? Critical thought is bad?  

But, now, one thing that strikes me is that to read the prepared speech (which can be found here http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/pebble.asp?relid=7159) and listen to Zuma’s off-the-cuff remarks on African identity, raising children, culture and tradition is to be reminded of the doubleness that haunts African consciousness, the enduring, terrible double visions that troubles our lives.

I think that I want to write a more extended piece on the matter of being critical of one’s tradition. For now though, here is the promised first draft of the published piece.

"Tradition is a source of power, but Zuma and other traditionalists are to be feared

Kopano Ratele and Mbuyiselo Botha

In light of what Africa has withstood since European imperialistic expansion, there is no doubt that there is great resilience and beauty to be found in tradition in need of better understanding and preserving.

However, it is no secret that many traditions, in Africa and beyond, can hurt the very people who identify with it. Practices such as ukuthwala, female genital mutilation, and in general, the unearned power of men as a group over women are some of the traditions inimical to the general development of African cultures.

Over a week ago in his address to the National House of traditional Leaders President Jacob Zuma attacked black people who dare disagree with some of the precepts of their self-avowed traditions and culture. He called them ‘Africans who become too clever’ and, with a phrase strikingly similar to the one his erstwhile supporter Julius Malema used when he spoke about the woman Zuma was charged with raping, that they are pursuing the white man’s way.

There is much to fear when zealous traditionalists like President Jacob Zuma attempt to make black people offer unreflective obedience to his views of what constitutes tradition, and make what are subjective retrogressive views as the total of tradition.

While there is some positive consequence from having a president who does not hide his identification with his tradition, best exemplified by his polygamous union, which are of course permitted by our constitution, traditionalist like Zuma should not seek to foist their beliefs and practices on all black people.

Many black men and women make different choices, like marrying one spouse or not all, and no president or traditionalist should impose his views on them.  

For Zuma to speak disparagingly against black people who critically engage their culture and tradition by calling them clever black is more than merely unfortunate or ironic. Zuma of course is deliberately conflating his own views of tradition with tradition in its entirety, suing tradition for short-term political gain.

In the long term, lashing out against critical black citizen is bad for the future of black traditions.

The irony is that Zuma is channeling a colonialist discourse by calling critical citizens clever blacks and wishing they were an undifferentiated and dumb mass even when they are disagreed with what they consider detrimental to the collective and oppressive or folly in their traditions and leaders.

Zuma is not alone in views and construction of black traditions as beyond criticism and static or desire for black to be homogenous. The reason his views seem to have found resonance with the traditional leaders is because many in the House share similar sentiments.

Ordinarily, tradition is a much abused, or at best misused, word, but traditionalists are the worst abusers.

Whilst some of the abuse is willful, another form arises from self-induced ignorance. Jacob Zuma exhibited both types of abuse of traditions for the benefit of and in collusion traditional leaders in his address.

To appreciate the abuse of the idea of tradition, we have to understand the two overlapping meanings of the word.

First, tradition refers to something handed down from generation to generation, for example about the right number of spouses a woman or man deserves to take, acceptable sexual acts, or how best settle a dispute.

Second, tradition means a belief, practice or value from time immemorial. Polygynous relations, veneration of ancestors, respect for elders, ubuntu, and chieftancy are a few examples.

If what Zuma exhibited was abuse from self-induced blindness, he needs to be reminded that in any generation there is always bound to be differences about any practice considered to be traditional. Compared to many other projects, it will be money well-spent if Zuma were to commission a survey to ask about their support of different traditions like polygamy and men as heads of households he and other traditionalists believe all black should obey. At least that money will go into expanding our knowledge about our society and its cultures.

The fact that Zuma doesn’t seem to appreciate for his own private reason is that anyone who takes time to ask people about their traditions quickly finds that any practice considered part of tradition and culture is never wholly supported by all. It has nothing to do with a white man’s agenda or any other conspiracy, just the complexity of modern societies and individuals how live in it. We just believe in different things, even if are all Zulus or black. Tradition is always contested by those it is intended to subject to its dominion. 

Why should black women and men not exercise their native intelligence by contesting some of the precepts of their culture and tradition they don’t agree with?

Professor Ratele heads the Programme on Traditions in the Institute for Social and Health Sciences at Unisa, and Botha works in media and government relations for Sonke Gender Justice Network."

Not so much a 'Jimmy comes to Joburg'

My very first international experience. For a 9am flight to Abu Dhabi, I was at the airport at 6am. Wanted to make sure that nothing goes wrong, after all, these opportunities don't come by every second day. Checked in my luggage and had breakfast and walked around for some time. Finally it was boarding time and there I was in my seat with my inflatable pillow and stuff (this girl went shopping for this trip I tell you). It took I don't know how many hours to get to Abu Dhabi where I had to hang around for another 7 hours before my next flight to London Heathrow. Got to Abu Dhabi walked around and couldn't find anything I wanted to buy. Changed 500 South African Rands into Dirhams (figured it should be enough to entertain me for seven hours, boy was I wrong). I sat at a bar called Skyways for about an hour until I met Becky, an American, in the military and was on her way to Kuwait for her deployment. Let's just say we hit it off and one could've sworn we were the best of friends, took pictures, exchanged notes and shared just a few too many drinks. Couldn't have been that many because not one of us missed their flight.

There I was on my way to Heathrow. I must say that I think I am quite street smart though. I didnt get lost not even once. Got to Heathrow's passport control and I felt like I was applying for my visa all over again, they asked for my conference invitation letter, the programme etc. I collected my luggage and was off on a bus to Oxford. When I got off the bus, the first thing I did was to ask someone which direction I should go to Mansfield College, was not up for walking around for hours dragging a suitcase. What was said to be a ten minute walk to Mansfield took me about twenty five minutes. But hey, these Londoners walk everywhere so ofcourse they have mastered the 'art' of walking. So yay, I am there, ready to check into my room and guess what? "I am sorry ma'm but your room is not ready, you might want to come back after 2pm", REALLY? Left my luggage with the porters and went off. It was raining my shoes were wet so I got myself a new pair of shoes, what I would call the 'signature Oxford boot', everyone was wearing the same shoes!

And so the week started. Tuesday the conference started and boy what a diverse group. The papers were brilliant, sadly though some not very well delivered due to acoustics that were'nt working very well for non-first language English speakers. I couldn't hear some of the presentations but one could tell that the work it covered was great, exciting and worth an audience. Apparently microphones are very expensive in Oxford hence we didn't have one. Never mind that each delegate paid about 258 pounds which is like over R3000! Nonetheless, the conference went on and I was anxious for my paper especially after hearing how philosophical people were, like trying to break the very word 'discourse' into pieces and all the discourses one can draw on when talking about the word discourse, does that even make sense? My turn came, I presented and apparently I did a great job. I was glad to be done and felt more relaxed. We had to celebrate so we went to Kings Arms.

There is something about being South African that just draws people around one. It's like a 'magnet' effect. I had fun and the people were nice, tried out a few 'traditional' beers, had great food and made good friends.

For my short stay there I must say my travel was too long, but worth every minute. The last session took place and people were getting ready to go. Lucky me still had another day to spend in Oxford and had a nice plan, visited the Museum, Historic Libraries, the Castle and did some shopping. Last day came and I was ready for the road. Now there is something about customs that I don't understand, when you enter a country they will ask you for papers to prove your stay and tickets to show that you are returning on the day you said you will. But when you leave it gets worse. At Heathrow I had to take off my shoes, my belt, empty my hand luggage and have them scan each and every piece of something that was in that bag. The same thing happened when I got to Abu Dhabi, emptied my hand luggage, took off my shoes and belt and had to repack. Having ckecked my luggage in from Heathrow to Joburg made my journey easier I thought. All in all the conference was great, the delegates were great and coming back home was great, only to find that my luggage had been stuck in Abu Dhabi for some reason with all my keys and stuff, so I squatted.

 Now there is one thing I forgot to mention in all of this. I met a guy, gorgeous guy named Robert. Now Robert is the first white guy I have ever been attracted to and it didn't help that he is gay and married. He took me on walks, took pictures of me and showed me around since he is from London he knew exactly where to go. He took me on a very long walk along their river, parks etc, and anyone could've mistaken this to be one of those first date walks. I tell you had he not been gay, he might just have been my very first white boyfriend. Now Robert is married so it is all good and well.

Back in the office, now I have to get back into 'working mode' and all I can think about is .....take a guess. By the way I am only talking about a pair of shoes I saw....!

Had a great experience and thanks to the University of South Africa for making it happen!

And Thus Fades Tradition: Tributes to Neville Alexander, Examplary Being

Many tributes have poured from several quarters about Professor Neville Alexander's stature, politics, intellectual prowess, and exemplary ethical principle, incuding this one from the president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, and this from Khadija Patel which deserves reading. In case you may have missed them, here is one from his friends, associates, and colleagues to start you off. Neville Alexander represented a certain clear, but sadly fading, intellectual and political tradition to many people around South Africa and elsewhere. He was born on 22 October 1936 in Cradock, the Eastern Cape, and died 27 August 2012 at his home on the Cape flatland outside Cape Town.

Tribute to Neville Alexander

Written by Na-iem Dollie, Hamied Mahate, James Marsh, Enver Motala, Jean Pease, John Samuels, Marcus Solomon, Salim Vally and Crain Soudien

27 August 2012

Neville Edward Alexander meant many specific things to many different people. For the most part of his adult life, he grappled with life’s contradictions, its dilemmas, its twists and its beauty as a socialist intellectual and a revolutionary Marxist since his political baptism in the Non-European Unity Movement’s student wing, the Cape Peninsula Students’ Union. In the unfolding drama that captures his life’s work, Alexander eschewed the presumed impartiality of the scholar who pretends to stand “on the wall of a threatened city” and write about the oppressors and the oppressed. Like Antonio Gramsci, Amilcar Cabral, Che Guevara and Leon Trotsky, Alexander’s place has been “within the revolution’s threatened city”. His political and academic choices were ideologically inspired and his writings were crafted unambiguously to promote the interests of working people and their allies.

                Alexander was born in Cradock in the Eastern Cape on 22 October 1936. His father was David James Alexander, a carpenter, and his mother, Dimbiti Bisho Alexander, a school teacher. His maternal grandmother was enslaved as a child in Ethiopia in 1888, rescued on the high seas and eventually brought to Lovedale in the Eastern Cape. His formal schooling was at the Holy Rosary Convent, and his university studies were at the University of Cape Town and the University of Tübingen in Germany where he completed his doctorate on the dramatic work of Gerhardt Hauptmann in 1961.

                After Sharpeville in 1960 and after his return to South Africa in 1961, Alexander opened up a debate within the African People’s Democratic Union of Southern Africa (Apdusa) about the armed struggle. He formed the Yu Chin Chan Club which included Marcus Solomon, Kenneth Abrahams and Fikile Bam. This organisation was superseded by the National Liberation Front. He was arrested in 1963 and convicted in 1964. Alexander spent 10 years on Robben Island where he had an epic debate on the “national question”, first with Walter Sisulu and then with Nelson Mandela. In more ways than one, this exchange prefigured his own written exposition of this question in One Azania, One Nation, which was published in 1979. In this work, Alexander draws up a Marxist interpretation of nationalism, its limits and possibilities and its dire consequences. One Azania, One Nation is his philosophical and political template for much of his subsequent writings.

                In 1981, Alexander became Western Cape director of the South African Committee for Higher Education (Sached). Through Sached, he established Khanya College, an institution that was created to serve as a bridging organisation for black students en route to university study. He also established the National Language Project (1985) and the Project for the Study of Alternative Education in South Africa (Praesa) in the 1990s.

                In June 1983, he formed the National Forum with Pandelani Nefolovhodwe, Saths Cooper, Lybon Mabasa and others, and which had as its patrons Desmond Tutu, Albertina Sisulu and Emma Mashinini. This forum drew up the Azanian Manifesto, a set of demands and injunctions calling for a socialist state in South Africa. For Alexander, this forum was an effort at a united front of oppressed people’s organisations, and had as its aim the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by a more equitable distribution of the country’s resources. In the early 1990s, he initiated a new political organisation called the Workers Organisation for Socialist Action and to which he has remained committed.

                Alexander’s literary output includes eight books and numerous scholarly articles that have been published in refereed journals, and through political and educational organisations with which he has been associated. One Azania, One Nation was followed by Sow the Wind (1985), Language policy and National Unity in South Africa/Azania (1989), Education and the Struggle for National Liberation in South Africa (1990), Some Are More Equal Than Others (1993), Robben Island Dossier (1994), and An Ordinary Country: Issues in the Transition from Apartheid to Democracy (2002).

                In his writings, Alexander rejected the notion of “’race” as a valid biological entity. While he accepted that racism exists as a social construct, and with the life-and-death consequences of the former apartheid regime’s Bantustan policies and Hitler’s delusions about a master race, he criticised the lack of a scientific understanding within the former South African liberation movement’s perceptions about the phenomenon of “race”. Instead, through his work, he experimented with notions of colour-caste, class and identities, and marshalled his thoughts to develop an indigenous theory of knowledge about humanity’s genealogy and evolving consciousness.

                What separated Alexander from many other academics and intellectuals is that his pursuit of knowledge was anchored in the existential imperative to act in the “here and now”. He stood on the shoulders of equally agile and committed writers and thinkers such as Ben Kies and Isaac Bangani Tabata, who were leaders in knowledge production outside the academy. His interrogation of contemporary debates and conversations on language and nation-building places him among the leading scholars and committed writers on the future of humanity. His synergy with former SACP stalwart Harold Wolpe’s Race, Class and the Apartheid State (1988) is not accidental.

                Neville Alexander was a radical participant in the making of South African history. In his own words, written in 1995 after the democratic elections in 1994: “The nation is being imagined, invented, created before our eyes. Indeed, we are extremely fortunate to have been afforded ringside seats by Clio enabling us to observe in the most concrete manner possible the contest between the nation conceived as a community of culture and the nation as a political community. As organic intellectuals, however, we resemble Brechtian rather than Aristotelian theatre-goers. Like every other would-be mother or sire of the nation, we want to be involved in its conception even if only as midwives to the wondrous fruit of the womb of our struggle. At worst, we are willing to be mere critics, those (usually tired old) men and women who stand around in the labor ward admiring or bewailing the features of the new-born infant.”

Baba Buntu, of Shabaka: Men of Afrika, On How To Respond When Whites Make Race-Jokes, Exclude You, Talk Down To You Or Express “Subtle Racism” - Or, Even, When Other Black Staff Treat Your White Colleagues Better Than You.

Baba Buntu, of Shabaka: Men of Afrika, wrote this on the group's facebook page. It's a how-to, let's-break-it-down, useful piece of advice on responding to white racist micro-aggression, insults, exclusions, put-downs and the covert everyday racism many black people will know of in the workplace. I have reposted it below, or you can go to the source here http://www.facebook.com/groups/197738272066/permalink/10151372276232067/ and make your comments directly to him. Read and learn. Or not.

Baba Buntu

Race and racism in the workplace: How should you respond when whites make race-jokes, exclude you, talk down to you or express “subtle racism” - or, even, when other black staff treat your white colleagues better than you? Here are some points to consider:

1. First of all (note that I put “subtle racism” in inverted commas), there is no better or worse racism. Whether it is expressed as an “innocent” joke or a brutal attack it comes from the same value of affirming Black Inferiority and White Supremacy. Do not accept when whites tell you that “they didn’t mean anything bad”.

2. Do not buy into the “you see, I chose to be the better person, so I don’t respond” crap. If a person kicks you to the ground and call you dog, and you remain lying down, you BECOME a dog. Don’t!

3. (This is important;) Working in an environment with whites – you can NOT afford to be surprised if/when/that race becomes an issue. It will. And you must be prepared. ALWAYS carry a virtual tool-box of responses. Never again must you leave work and keep spinning in your mind: “why didn’t I say anything” through sleepless nights.

4. The saying “you teach people how to treat you” is essential. But to know your boundaries of how you accept to “be treated” means you need to know yourself. Who are you? Have you accepted that you are “just another black”? That you belong to a “powerless people” and must accept anything? Or do you step into your workplace as a representative of ancient majestic rulers and founders of world civilizations? There IS a difference. Messing with you equals provoking 10,000 years of excellence. And, trust me, your surrounding will notice.

5. Do NOT allow yourself to be emotional in the situation. If you need to kick, scream, cry and shout – do it in the toilet or run outside for 5 minutes. When you can, plan and reflect deeply on your response, weigh each word and make sure you use power language (substitute“please listen” with “let me explain something to you”, “sorry to sound upset” with “this is completely unacceptable” and “i dont mean to be judgemental” with “I am surprised to see such unintelligent behaviour”). Talk slow. Sit/stand in a way that you have full control of your body language. Use direct eye contact. Use their name repeatedly and use rhetoric language (“Steve Hofmeyer, you really think you are getting away with this?”, “Is any of this sinking into your mind, Steve?”).

6. Be confident. Do not threaten. Do not use emotional language. Do not say the words “hurt”, “sad” or “upset”. Feeling-words might be accurate, but will be used against you in the court of supreme whiteness. When interrupted, say “Wait, I am not finished, I will tell you when it is your turn”. Know when to stop the conversation and plan your closing statement. The last word, of course, MUST be yours.

7. Situations are different and you need different modes of intervention for different purposes. Be very aware – before you go into the talk – what your intention is. Do you want to understand what happened (if so, you “interrogate”, ask a lot and listen a lot, then sum up and comment). Do you want to just make the person understand that this is unacceptable (if so, you talk a lot and listen less: “honestly, I am not interested in your opinion, I am teaching you a valuable lesson, so be thankful that I even bother”). Are you going mad and need to put your foot down (if so, you share your three points, close up and leave – quick and effective).

8. Are you not the confrontational type? Well, consider this for a moment: You are a representative of great Afrikan legacies, put on this planet in the image of God with a particular purpose. It is your task to CARRY these legacies and CARRY OUT your purpose. Teaching someone that they are wrong is not about constantly fighting, it is about representing all you are with confidence and self-worth. So you better woman up and man up real quick!

9. What if you stand to lose your job? Well, this is a decision only you can make and, obviously, you want to be aware of the consequences your action can have – and prepare as best possible. It is the situation for most Afrikan people in employment that you are “just another number” and can easily be replaced if you are a “trouble maker”. You need to weigh your options. But the legacy of “sticking it out”, tolerating and biting your lip MUST stop. Black health suffers tremendously from this legacy. This is where cooperative action and collective will must come in.

10. What if your abuser is another Black Skin in White Mask? You know, the Black, enslaved accomplices of white power who have an issue with your Black confidence. You obviously want to attempt an “out of court settlement” first (meaning, not blow it up in the face of Europeans present), but, if you have bring the streets into the office, that’s what you do. But, of course, intelligently so. Claims such as “you’re not really black”, “you’re an Uncle Tom” and “coconut nigger” might be correct labels, but will get you nowhere in solving the problem. So narrow it down to the specifics, be clear and non-compromising.

I think by now you realize the necessity of these messages as we all have been brainwashed into fearful self-neglect and intimidation once we step into the “plantation”. Assert yourself Black Woman and Black Man. Reclaim your dignity so that our children can know theirs.

(The above points are for “everyday situations”, and not for extreme cases of open hatred, direct discrimination and racial abuse. In these cases you obviously need stronger strategies and not just talk...)

The emerging 'new' man vs the so called "bitch niggaz"



I often find that as I read through literature about masculinity, reference is made to the so called emergent 'new' man. A sensitive, feminine man who sounds like he could be every woman's favourite. Yet, so many men despise this man, consider him 'not masculine' and believe that “he won’t get laid because he is a fag”. Not only do men despise this emerging man, but they also despise the strong, bold, competitive and successful woman, who is hardworking and very likely to beat any men at any position, not that we are competing but we are brilliant like that.

Now being a strong, hardworking young woman, I am very affected by the stance that some men tend to take towards women who do not allow themselves to be bullied, abused, or oppressed. Men seem to feel intimidated by this type of woman and this is manifested in the labels they give to women who boldly oppose them such as "nompendulo" which means having an answer for everything or having too much too say.

In my personal experience I have found that being educated, strong, and doing well for myself puts me at a disadvantage when it comes to dating. I have come to realize that it actually makes me 'undatable'. So I am literally OFF the market not because I have been swept of my feet, but because young black men do not know how to handle independent sisters like me. Instead, they find me very frustrating because I know how to express myself when something makes me uncomfortable, I do not need permission to go out with my girlfriends and do ladies night all night without any man having to tell me where I need to be or what I need to do.

I know how to get around on my own, taxis are  do just fine. I do not need a man to drop me off anywhere just so he can tell me what time he will pick me up so that he can decide what time I need to be home. I am fortunate to find myself in a position where I can be empowered, liberated and situated in an environment that allows me to grow and be my own person. This liberation however has been rendered unfortunate by the brothers who make me believe they love me and yet can't stand my growth, they care for me yet they can’t let me make my own decisions nor reasonably oppose their 'righteous' opinion.

I have had to mend my heart on several occasions all because guys think I am too opinionated or I don’t allow them to be the men they want to be for me which includes deciding on my behalf and leaving me feeling like “I need him”. Women have fought for years to be in the positions that we find ourselves in today and still continue to do so. Why then do we have to be mistreated just because we are strong and independent? Why do we have to be lonely simply because men feel intimidated by us? One brother once told me that we can’t both wear the 'pants' in the relationship, and I wondered what exactly he was on about! Does him wearing the pants mean I have to cry, feel worthless and be controlled?

How does being an assertive woman make you stubborn? I wish to understand how these men conceptualize love relationships in their heads because this can’t be it. No one wants to be lonely yes, but that does not mean life does not go on without the other! Men need to realize that the more they resist women's assertion, independence and power, the more likely women are to go on a quest for even more empowerment, more action towards oppression, and strive even harder to be in positions that allow them to stand up for themselves. Yes we want to have you in our lives, but that does not mean you need to run our lives. This need for a partner is a natural reaction to our hormonal, emotional and physical needs which can easily be taken care of nowadays, it doesn't  make us weak or incapable of taking care of ourselves. 

Men’s role in women’s lives as provider, caretaker, and protector are slowly losing their significance. Women can take care of themselves and their children, and are more and more becoming financially independent. Very soon, not even sexual role that men play will make a difference.  Technological devices for sexual satisfaction are improving and women are catching on fast. Given this, what exactly will their role be? Not even to make babies because doctors have found ways to make it possible without the male as partner. I’m just saying that men need to step up their game.

Men need to know that when you have a boyfriend in your life, we think of it as having a partner not a manager, having a friend not a daddy or disciplinarian. The more you continue to treat us as helpless, the more likely we are to want to prove that we are self-sufficient, and as offensive as you may find that to your manhood, I am still my own person and you will not decide my fate for me. Because I love my independence and freedom, I have given up on the hopes of ever getting married, because I fear that my husband might just find me too 'hardmondig'. Though this might just be my reality, it would be an unfair reality because I actually believe that a partner is always good to have, but only the partner that will encourage his woman to work hard and succeed, a partner that will applaud when his woman gets a promotion, and not a partner that will tell her she is fat, has cellulite and is too ugly to be with anyone else because it is never true. Katt Williams in his Pimp Chronicles refers to a type of man he calls a “bitch nigga”. This is a man who feels the need to make women feel subordinate/inferior just so that he can feel superior or feel like a 'real' man. Real men know that they need not prove that they are men, need not assert themselves violently because their actions speak for their manhood.

I strongly believe that men have to work much harder now than ever before to be the men that will be good fathers and role models one day given that they are responsible enough to even find women who want to have their children.

Maybe someday  my prince charming will come along. Not just any, but one who will be happy being my friend and partner instead of manager or father, otherwise celibacy awaits me. It saddens me that I feel this way because I do believe that not ALL men are “bitch niggaz”, I am just not coming across my ideal.

Someone please hook a sister up with the 'emerging new man'.

Worrying about My Black Boy’s Future in America, by Allison R. Brown, of America’s Wire Writers Group

My husband and I fuss and fret over our black boy.

Like other parents, we worry about a lot. We want him to use his smarts for good. Do we coddle him too much? We want him to be tough and kind, but assertive and gentle, and not mean. His boundaries of independent exploration are radiating outward, concentric circles growing farther and farther from us.

We wring our hands and pretend to look away in acknowledgment that he’s ready to claim his freedom, even as we cast furtive glances his way. We’re beginners in the worry department. He’s only 9 years old.

Our angst certainly isn’t unique among parents of black boys. What’s unique for us and for other such parents is that when we peek inside the matrix, we panic. Agents out there are bearing down on our son — bloodthirsty for his dignity, his humanity — as if he were the one. We feel outnumbered, but we hunker down for battle.

This is not a paranoid conspiracy rant. Recent data from the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education reveals that black boys are the most likely group of students to be suspended or expelled from school. Black men and boys are more likely than any demographic group to be targeted — hunted, really — and arrested by police.

Meanwhile, the number of black males taking advanced courses in elementary, middle and high schools and entering college remains disproportionately low. Suicide among black boys is increasing. Media imagery and indifference have locked black boys in their sights. Prisons have become corporate behemoths with insatiable appetites for black and brown boys and men.

My husband and I rightfully agonize about our boy. We agonize alongside many who are working to help, including the federal government. I know firsthand the work that the federal government has done and is doing to improve circumstances for black boys. This includes internal memos and meetings, interagency planning sessions, public conferences, community meetings and listening sessions, and now a White House initiative.

I also know that the federal government is accountable to numerous constituencies that sometimes have conflicting needs. Federal government workers must walk a fine line among varying public interests, which occasionally has meant unintended consequences for black boys.

For instance, in 1994, the federal priority of “zero tolerance” for anyone bringing a weapon to school was signed into law as the Gun-Free Schools Act.That priority reached fever pitch after the Columbine school massacre in 1999 and subsequent copycat slayings and attempts to kill. Federal requirements were overshadowed by local authorities and school administrators who stretched the parameters of “zero tolerance” in schools beyond logical measure to include, for instance, spoons as weapons and Tylenol as an illegal drug, and to suspend and expel students as a result.

“Zero tolerance” has entered the realm of the ridiculous. Many schools have removed teacher and administrator discretion and meted out harsh punishment for school uniform violations, schoolyard fights without injury and various undefined and indefinable categories of offense such as “defiance” and “disrespect.”

Students are suspended, expelled and even arrested for such conduct without investigation or inquiry. There is no evidence to support use of exclusionary discipline practices as tools for prevention, and they have no educational benefit. The brunt of this insanity has fallen on black boys.

Recent federal priorities have targeted harassment and bullying in school to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students from peer-on-peer discrimination dismissed by, and in many cases encouraged by, school administration. Again, understandable.

The goal is praiseworthy — to protect, finally, a population of students and segment of society that has long been a whipping post for every political party, ignored in political discussions except to condemn. While my husband and I have ardently supported federal protections for LGBT students, practically speaking, we continue to lose sleep over our blackboy.

Another peek inside the matrix tells me that the fever pitch around this latest federal agenda item will mean a significant cost to black boys when new categories of offense are created, new ways to characterize them as criminals unworthy of participating in mainstream education or society.

It’s one thing for educators to guide student conduct and educate students about how to care for and respect one another, which is a primary focus of the federal move against harassment and bullying. It’s quite another to change mindsets of adults who run the system, too many of whom believe and speak negatively about black boys and what they cannot accomplish or should not do.

To speak and think affirmatively, to affirm behavior and black boys as people, is to relish the silly jokes they tell within their context, to compliment them on their haircuts or groomed and styled dreadlocks and cornrows, to adopt lingo they create and add it to classroom repertoire, and to invite their fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers, cousins to participate in the educational experience.

To support black boys is to celebrate their physical playfulness and the unique ways in which they may support and affirm one another. As with any other children, we must teach black boys through instruction and by example how to read and write, and how to conduct themselves without erasing their identity and attempting to substitute another. We must hone their instincts, whims and knowledge base so they can be empowered to exhibit all the good in themselves. We must be willing to show them our human frailties so they know how to get up and carry on after falling down. Yes, these things can benefit all children, but many children receive them by default. Black boys do not.

To love black boys is to refuse to be an agent of forces clamoring for their souls and instead to be their Morpheus, their god of dreams, to help them believe in their power to save all of us and to train them to step into their greatness. Those agents in the matrix are real. If everyone combines forces and uses common sense, we can declare victory for black boys and eventually all of us.

But without a change in mindset, federal initiatives, no matter their good intentions or the incredible talents that give them life, will continue to leave black boys by the wayside as collateral damage.

My husband and I will continue to fret, knowing the formidable challenges our son faces. We hope that if he has a son, that boy can be just a boy.

Brown is a former trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section. She is president of Allison Brown Consulting, which works with educators, students, families and other key stakeholders to improve the quality of education, especially for black boys. America’s Wire is an independent, nonprofit news service run by the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education and funded by a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Our stories can be republished free of charge by newspapers, websites and other media sources. For more information, visit www.americaswire.org or contact Michael K. Frisby at mike@frisbyassociates.com.

Reclaim Your Voice!

Mandisa Malinga at  Bush
 Radio Station

In addition to the pressures of organising a Youth Day Campaign, I also had the opportunity to be interviewed by a radio station for the very first time, something a colleague of mine called a 'radio virgin'. The interview was requested by Bush Radio Station as part of their show called Sakha Isizwe, which profiles organisations that work towards building and strengthening communities. This show also profiles events that work towards community development, hence the interview.

The experience was great, who would not want to be on radio? I made sure all of my friends knew about it and listened to it. It was a great opportunity which led to a second telephonic interview with Radio Helderberg. Lets just say I felt like a star for the week, which fueled my energy for the campaign. Now the campaign has passed and I get to listen to the interview clip and I am thinking about going into broadcasting, and plus the lady who interviewed me told me I sound like I do this everyday. So lets just say I have a back-up plan.

I thought it would be nice to share the interview on the blog so people can listen to it to hear what the campaign was about, but also to comment on my "radio voice" just before I make the worst career move. Hope everyone who listens to it will enjoy it. Please click on the link below to listen to the interview:

http://www.divshare.com/download/launch/18877827-aee

By: Mandisa Malinga

Are SA leaders exempted from behaviour advocated through campaigns?

DADDY'S GIRLS: President Jacob Zuma's
daughters, from left, Phumzile, Thuthu,
 Dudu and Gugu

The Metro FM news bulletin announced last week that the government is set to launch a campaign to encourage people to have fewer children and encourage birth control measures. Now in my understanding, our government is led by the ANC, which is led by our President Jacob Zuma, who at this point happens to have just over 20 children.

Please do not misunderstand my concern to be that of criticism against the President and his ‘traditional’ lifestyle, but rather as a sincere concern about the way our traditional way of learning and modelling behaviour has been ignored in all these campaigns.

This reminds me of the ‘one girlfriend, one boyfriend’ campaign advocated by Julius Malema, who was at the time under the leadership of our president. Needless to say that it seems to me that we have become a hypocritical nation, legitimising behaviour from certain well esteemed individuals while condemning the same behaviour when it involves by our general population.

Being a member of this general population I know at this point that due to my financial situation of lack of a financial situation, I cannot bring children into this world. Children are not only an expense, but they also require a certain level of emotional maturity from the parent. Parents are role models for their children, and it is likely that if you behave in a certain way, your children are likely to do the same; it is called social learning and modelling. Similarly, citizens of this country may not see why they are constantly being told to have fewer children, use family planning options when our President does the opposite.

This whole ‘do as I say not as I do’ thing does not work in South Africa as we have seen and we should know by now that people are not as ignorant as we may think they are. People are aware of what happens around them and as part of forming their own identities, may pattern their thoughts, feelings and actions after the President who serves as a role model for many South African citizens. You ask a few young people what they would like to do when they grow up and they tell you they want to be the president, not because they want to assume his position, but rather because they want to be like “him”.

So before we go on about what needs to be done to change people’s behaviour and how we can stop them from having too many babies, let us start at the top, let us ensure that people have role models that will model the kind of behaviour we advocate to ensure that we get the results we hope to get.

This post was first published on TimesLIVE on 13 July 2012 and can be viewed on the following link:

http://www.timeslive.co.za/ilive/2012/07/13/are-sa-leaders-exempted-from-behaviour-advocated-through-campaigns

Social cohesion means talking against the everyday talk of racial segregation: iLIVE

Wednesday marked the beginning of the social cohesion summit being held in Soweto. The summit is being hosted by the department of arts and culture and aims to promote social cohesion, national identity and nation-building. Addressing the summit Dr. Dlamini Zuma, minister of Home Affairs, said that in order for social cohesion to be realised South Africans must practice equality.

This past weekend I was with an acquaintance and a programme on the radio was discussing the summit. She chuckled when the radio presenter mentioned the World Cup and social cohesion present between all South African. At this point acquaintance announced that “black people just think differently”.

My heart sank. I have been in this position before and it is beyond uncomfortable. I always want to confront the person making this type of statement but for some reason good manners prevail and I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. So, as usual I go silent and I think my discomfort becomes evident in my body language. I thought about this woman – well she and I may be similar in terms of culture but we surely don’t think alike. I think she sensed my disapproval and asked me whether I work with black people. My response – I work with people.

So what does this have to do with social cohesion? Why do we stereotype and form what psychologists refer to as in-groups and out-groups? It is simple – we are always trying to form, reshape and reinforce our identities and whilst we mostly think of identity being central to individuals, group identities are just as important. By creating a group identity we strengthen cohesion within that group and this also contributes to our individual identities. The flip-side of this however is that by making our in-group identity stronger we run the risk of widening the gap with out-groups and this hinders social cohesion between groups.

In our rainbow nation we are suppose to be one society – South African. However we cannot deny that there are differences and at the moment there is still a trend to create ones’ identity in relation to others of similar race, culture and classes. This tendency results in us turning other races, cultures and classes as outsiders, even antagonists. A shift needs to occur where we place more of an emphasis on our national identity in order to increase social cohesion.

South African identities are also rooted in ideologies of segregation. I still know of instances where people let their domestic workers use different plates to the rest of the household. I know this was common practice under Apartheid as it perpetuated the legitimised ideology of different races and superiority and inferiority of certain races. The fact that people still practice segregation of crockery is indicative of an ideology, whilst not legitimised, still exists. When I see this practice, I am too polite to say anything. What I really want to ask the person is ‘what will happen to your plate if someone else uses it? Really, what is the worst things that could happen?’

But I am so disappointed in myself. I know the saying that ‘bad things happen when good people do nothing’. By not addressing this sort of statements that represent an ideology that needs to be changed I am, and surely many other South Africans are tacitly perpetuating the ideology. So I promise that the next time I am faced with a statement that threatens our sense of nationality I will in some way address it. Not in a rude or mean way but in a way which hopefully makes the speaker reflect on the statement and realise the damage that it causes to a socially cohesive nation.

This post first appeared on Times Live http://www.timeslive.co.za/ilive/2012/07/06/social-cohesion-means-talking-against-the-everyday-talk-of-racial-segregation-ilive

What Tradition Looks Like If It's Not Called Tradition

For the last number of years I have been thinking of how to best articulate this idea that we are always doing tradition even if we call it other things. That when we go out to dinner we are doing tradition, or otherwise culture. I have often been heard saying, if you are hungry you eat, you don't bloody make a booking hours, or even days in advance to go out. That can't be from hunger. That is something else, usually called going out to dinner or lunch or whatever. But it's real name is making or doing tradition or culture. The tradition of eating when you may not be hungry and drinking wine when you are not thirsty and actually think the stuff taste horrible, that's what it is.

Perhaps in Hong Kong you do, you go down to play in the park because you have to go out and down to the ground level to run around. But not in South Africa. Here you have god-given space, plenty of it. You don't go to the park or drive or fly to the beach with your children because a park close to the beach is great for children. Children can play anywhere, even a gabbage dump or prison cell. You go to the beach or park to give them variety, an experience, a day or week out, because child-rearing experts say that is good for children. Or you yourself need to go out of the house, go on holiday for variety, have a day out, do something different. Whatever you call, it is more than just letting the children or yourself play . Another name for it is culture of child-rearing. And after a while it becomes tradition.
 
Because pictures sometimes are more efficient in saying things, I was looking for an image that would best represent this. Or rather, I am always looking for pictures to represent this idea. On Friday 1 June, driving along Beach Road in Sea Point, Cape Town, I chanced upon it. I made this picture. It will be no.1 in the series of What Tradition Looks Like If Its Not Called By That Name.

What Tradition Looks Like If Its Not Called By That Name, no. 1

We should be giving boys as much attention, not less

First Published on TimesLive | 13 June, 2012 11:19

http://www.timeslive.co.za/ilive/2012/06/13/we-should-be-giving-boys-as-much-attention-not-less-ilive

What’s up with all this attention and resources given to boys and masculinities, an associate and the head of a non-governmental organisation said to me a few months ago after I informed her about a talk on boys I was preparing to give a few days afterwards?

The person who asked me this, it’s significant to note, is a sexuality and gender equality activist with a specific interest in children and youth rights, meaning a likely ally.

Complaints about the funding and space given to the “fashionable topic” of masculinities are nothing new to me. I still find them disquieting though.

There is little confusion in my mind, however, about the significance of gender and sexuality as analytical categories in studying boys’ and men’s lives, as well as of course in trying to understand the societal subordination of girls and women.

I am also clear that, as in the case of white representation of black bodies and lives, as a self-avowed scholar on boys and men within feminist spaces, mine is both an invited and privileged position. Since I depend on their camaraderie, but also their on-going critique of my thought, I remain indebted to many African women, feminists, women’s liberationists, and womanists for their philosophical hospitality.

Such solidarity is especially important as some students, activists like my associate and researchers on gender and women have, from the beginning, raised their eyebrows at my interest in the subject of gender. They see this as usurping the space carved out by women’s liberation movement and feminism. And thus, perhaps like all self-aware white teachers of black children, I have experienced myself as both a stranger and comrade at being invited to teach within women’s and gender studies.  

I do appreciate why there is some reservation against men and women studying and working with boys and men. Much in the history of disciplined enquiry has been studies of men’s knowledge, actually.  

However I am convinced that the general argument that tends to support sentiments against a focus on boys is misplaced.

There is cause to bemoan the dwindling resources for NGOs working on women’s and girls’ issues. But to blame those working on masculinities is not to see the forest for the trees.

It is also incorrect to think that there have been buckets of money specifically allocated to the quality education of impoverished black boys for a productive, creative and meaningful life. Where money has been thrown at black boys from deprived homes, there still isn’t the kind of close and attentiveness that is required to radically change the world around them.

I was reminded of my associate’s displeasure about the attention given to boys when I read the Department of Basic Education’s report on the ‘2009-2010 Annual Surveys for Ordinary Schools’ released last month.

Two numbers that generated several media stories are 109 and 45 276. The first is the number of Grade 3 learners who fell pregnant in 2009 in South Africa, a dramatic increase from 17 in 2008. The second is the number of learners who fell pregnant, which was down from 49 599 in 2008.

These are unbelievable numbers. What they are suggestive of is that, in spite of the rhetoric about women and children, post-apartheid South Africa continues to desperately fail its girl-children. And it’s about much more than schooling.

None but a miracle girl begets herself pregnant while still in Grade 3 or at any other time. There is a boy somewhere in the background. More often it is a boy in the body of a grown man. And there’s the rub.

In turn, sex in Grade 3 suggests rape.

No girl wants to be sexually violated, however economically desperate, skimpily dressed or drunk she may be. The main cause of all sexual violence is a gender traditionalism that underpins men’s social psychologies of sexual entitlement over female bodies.

It is true that in many countries girls and women continue to confront violence and unjust discrimination on daily basis on the basis of age and gender.

It is true too that in many societies, China being the prime but not only example, there is still a preference for sons over daughters.

Furthermore, in many families and societies around the world girls and women still tend to enjoy less self-determination than the other sex. Unlike the latter, they can’t play as freely, get coerced into sex, may be forcibly married at an early age, are unable to take a walk without being harassed, are prohibited from leaving their homes unaccompanied by males, and can’t dream too big.

It is out of such conditions which characterise girlhood and women’s existence that schoolgirls get left with the baby.

Unless there is an empowering feminist sexuality and gender education for girls, their sisters and mothers, together with appropriate laws and their enforcement, they will continue to be preyed upon by males.

Yet, it is ludicrous to believe that male-children are in the same boat as older males. Boys are not men. They are developing beings. Rather than be punished for the sins of their fathers or unfairly advantaged, they ought to be educated for an egalitarian and compassionate society.

Failure to mould boys into fans of equality falls on the shoulders of adults.

Very few boys are born dictators, and none runs the world. Usually it is patriarchal traditionalism, with the complicit support of the majority of men and women, which creates the rules and norms that allow heterosexual men as a group to dominate the gender and sexual order.

While they may get some benefit from men’s gendered sexual power, boys also suffer great consequences from the social order. Like girls, boys in many countries face the ravages of social and economic inequalities.

The gender order is not geared to make boys live happier, healthier, and longer lives. In fact, being a boy, especially a black boy from a poor neighbourhood, puts one at heightened risk of premature death from accidents and violence.

By educating a girl for a feminist, educated, confident, happier and healthier life, without empowering a boy with progressive education to make them egalitarian, democratic, non-violent and healthier life does not just mean we will be faced with the problem of pregnant children for the foreseeable future. It retards the general quality of life in our society.

It would make girls’ present and future lives better if we also gave boys the kind of education that makes them more caring about girls’ needs and aspirations. 

Naturally, to work with boys and men only without due regard to the negative effects of the gender order on girls and women is to tacitly support the status quo. 

Instead of asking “what’s up with all this attention given to boys”, we ought to be asking, what kind of attention shall we give to boys to make their own lives and as well as girls’ full of worth?  

The kind of attention we need to give boys, especially black boys, is one that turns them, in their hearts and brains, into true believers of women’s and girls’ rights to their bodies and ambitions. If we don’t, we will continue to fail many girls, but also persists in underachieving as a culture.