Tuesday, 22 September 2015
Tuesday, 6 January 2015
When triumphalism trumps thought: A response to Floyd Shivambu
After the debauchery of the festive season, I read Floyd Shivambu's blog on the 1st National Assembly with indifference owing to January worries and other issues. Upon my first reading, what struck me about it was its triumphalist, rhetorical tone, but I choose to not dwell on that. What disturbed me the most was the lazy minded way in which he dealt with theoretical issues. For instance on point (a) as he explains the EFF's ideological posture he sleeps on the wheel and regurgitates the Congress position on South Africa's social formations: which is a mutation of the apartheid project of dividing our people along these lines: Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks i.e Zulu, Xhosa, Pedi etc. This sees him erroneously celebrating the election of so called Coloured and Indian fighters in the CCT, apparently this proves the non-racial nature of the EFF. Anyone who has seriously wrestled with the black consciousness philosophy appreciates that Coloureds and Indians share the same mark of apartheid dehumanisation, so they are included in the Blacks rubric. This explains why Biko and his comrades created an inclusive political identity to mitigate exactly what Shivambu is celebrating. So, the question arises: Commissar Shivambu, why are you celebrating the election of these fighters? Are they not black like all the other blacks elected at CCT level?
The opposite side of this problem is his investment in the non-racialism red herring. The fight was never the fight for a non racialist society, only Whites and their SACP lackeys were obsessed with non-racialism. The fight has always been one against White racism to create a non-racist society. Perhaps I need to explain this further. Racialism is about positively identifying with ones racial grouping: there's nothing sinister there, unless you have uncritically absorbed the poorly conceived congress position on this issue. Non-racism is a different story all together, it's about the complete eradication of white supremacy, the source from which white privilege emerges. So I ask again, why elevate the attainment of a non-racialist society without ridding this society of it's inherent racism? Alternatively, can you have non-racialism in a racist society? Or a 'post racial' racist society? I think you can. History has shown that you can have a society wherein racism operates at the level of the unsaid, even though everyone claims to have non-racialist commitments - South Africa is a case in point. This realisation, sadly awakens me to a depressing conclusion: Our Deputy President has not invested the requisite time to understand the differences between racism and racialism, how embarrassing!! Perhaps Andile Mngxitama's Blacks Can't Be Racist would be a useful starting point.
On point (b) Our newly elected Deputy President floating in the air with triumphalism, proceeds and dwarfs the importance of Biko's philosophy, he says "the black consciousness character is one that appreciate while our people where exploited as a class they were also made to believe through various streams of subjugation and ideological work as Africans they are inferior and the struggle for economic freedom seeks to liberate them from their inferiority consciousness which had been inflicted upon black peoples lives over centuries". This is utter distortion of history! The Black Consciousness Movement( BCM) is and has always been clear that black people were subjugated because of their race not because of class. Class was an offshoot of their racial oppression. Frantz Fanon captures this issue very well when he says "in the colonial world the cause is the effect, you are rich because you are white and you are white because you are rich"; the same is true for blacks, we are poor because we are black not because we are unable to sell our labour power. Even when we do we are kept poor intentionally to keep us at the position of blackness, that is, the lowest rung of humanity. This is a race not a class problem. The inferiority complex he glibly runs to was created by slavery and colonialism which had class connotations, not the other way around as he incorrectly intimates. I would humbly, encourage our Deputy President to go and read Biko and Fanon (if he ever did) again to avoid further embarrassing assertions, in the foreseeable future!
Point (d) is the most glaring example of our Deputy President's theoretical cul de sac. In it, Shivambu bleeds his rigid Marxism, he says, whilst chucking history out the window, "the EFF socialist and internationalist character is expressed in the ideological conviction that ours is a class struggle against capitalism and imperialism and should be guided and underpinned by the principles of international socialist solidarity and common struggles of the exploited masses of the world."
The first question is this: is capitalism a raceless endeavour? Or, put in a simpler way is capitalism without a racial character? If it does, why is this crucial aspect not finding expression on this point? Additionally, does this class struggle the EFF is supposedly engaged in not lose the particular or specific nature of the racist oppression that blacks suffer from in a white supremacist world order? Did the workers in Marikana die because they are workers or because they are black? What about Trayvon Martin, a young Black American boy who lived in a neighbourhood deemed a class bracket above basic blackness? Was George Zimmerman, his racist assailant, thinking class or race stereotypes when he stalked and killed him? Also, is it not a known fact that white workers in Australia doing the same work as those in Marikana earn and live in better conditions? How does the cherished class struggle explain this racial discrepancy? Also what in these common struggles makes us think racism gets elided or removed or lessened in its importance as our leader seems to suggest?
This erasure of race points us to an on-going attempt to remove Fanon from the holy triumvirate of Marx-Lenin-Fanon. After this is achieved, we will be left with a hollowed out Fanon, agreeable to a class obsessed, race-erasing movement that will punt socialism at the expense of the race problematic. A disconcerting development, if ever there was one!
I think here we are dealing with the Congress 'broad church mentality' which accommodated everyone at the expense of race as a governing tool of analysis. This flawed analytical frame was at the root of the "different streams with different parties" situation Shivambu seems to bemoan. The PAC radicals of Sobukhwe's generation walked out of the ANC precisely because of this imposition of rigid Marxist ideas to explain racial oppression. Hence, to posit the EFF as being engaged in a class struggle is to be self deceptive and ahistorical. It misses the point intirely, the fight is and has always been against White Supremacy, class has always been a composite element of that fight. The sooner Shivambu gets this there better, for the chances of economic freedom, or we will rue another missed opportunity!
The opposite side of this problem is his investment in the non-racialism red herring. The fight was never the fight for a non racialist society, only Whites and their SACP lackeys were obsessed with non-racialism. The fight has always been one against White racism to create a non-racist society. Perhaps I need to explain this further. Racialism is about positively identifying with ones racial grouping: there's nothing sinister there, unless you have uncritically absorbed the poorly conceived congress position on this issue. Non-racism is a different story all together, it's about the complete eradication of white supremacy, the source from which white privilege emerges. So I ask again, why elevate the attainment of a non-racialist society without ridding this society of it's inherent racism? Alternatively, can you have non-racialism in a racist society? Or a 'post racial' racist society? I think you can. History has shown that you can have a society wherein racism operates at the level of the unsaid, even though everyone claims to have non-racialist commitments - South Africa is a case in point. This realisation, sadly awakens me to a depressing conclusion: Our Deputy President has not invested the requisite time to understand the differences between racism and racialism, how embarrassing!! Perhaps Andile Mngxitama's Blacks Can't Be Racist would be a useful starting point.
On point (b) Our newly elected Deputy President floating in the air with triumphalism, proceeds and dwarfs the importance of Biko's philosophy, he says "the black consciousness character is one that appreciate while our people where exploited as a class they were also made to believe through various streams of subjugation and ideological work as Africans they are inferior and the struggle for economic freedom seeks to liberate them from their inferiority consciousness which had been inflicted upon black peoples lives over centuries". This is utter distortion of history! The Black Consciousness Movement( BCM) is and has always been clear that black people were subjugated because of their race not because of class. Class was an offshoot of their racial oppression. Frantz Fanon captures this issue very well when he says "in the colonial world the cause is the effect, you are rich because you are white and you are white because you are rich"; the same is true for blacks, we are poor because we are black not because we are unable to sell our labour power. Even when we do we are kept poor intentionally to keep us at the position of blackness, that is, the lowest rung of humanity. This is a race not a class problem. The inferiority complex he glibly runs to was created by slavery and colonialism which had class connotations, not the other way around as he incorrectly intimates. I would humbly, encourage our Deputy President to go and read Biko and Fanon (if he ever did) again to avoid further embarrassing assertions, in the foreseeable future!
Point (d) is the most glaring example of our Deputy President's theoretical cul de sac. In it, Shivambu bleeds his rigid Marxism, he says, whilst chucking history out the window, "the EFF socialist and internationalist character is expressed in the ideological conviction that ours is a class struggle against capitalism and imperialism and should be guided and underpinned by the principles of international socialist solidarity and common struggles of the exploited masses of the world."
The first question is this: is capitalism a raceless endeavour? Or, put in a simpler way is capitalism without a racial character? If it does, why is this crucial aspect not finding expression on this point? Additionally, does this class struggle the EFF is supposedly engaged in not lose the particular or specific nature of the racist oppression that blacks suffer from in a white supremacist world order? Did the workers in Marikana die because they are workers or because they are black? What about Trayvon Martin, a young Black American boy who lived in a neighbourhood deemed a class bracket above basic blackness? Was George Zimmerman, his racist assailant, thinking class or race stereotypes when he stalked and killed him? Also, is it not a known fact that white workers in Australia doing the same work as those in Marikana earn and live in better conditions? How does the cherished class struggle explain this racial discrepancy? Also what in these common struggles makes us think racism gets elided or removed or lessened in its importance as our leader seems to suggest?
This erasure of race points us to an on-going attempt to remove Fanon from the holy triumvirate of Marx-Lenin-Fanon. After this is achieved, we will be left with a hollowed out Fanon, agreeable to a class obsessed, race-erasing movement that will punt socialism at the expense of the race problematic. A disconcerting development, if ever there was one!
I think here we are dealing with the Congress 'broad church mentality' which accommodated everyone at the expense of race as a governing tool of analysis. This flawed analytical frame was at the root of the "different streams with different parties" situation Shivambu seems to bemoan. The PAC radicals of Sobukhwe's generation walked out of the ANC precisely because of this imposition of rigid Marxist ideas to explain racial oppression. Hence, to posit the EFF as being engaged in a class struggle is to be self deceptive and ahistorical. It misses the point intirely, the fight is and has always been against White Supremacy, class has always been a composite element of that fight. The sooner Shivambu gets this there better, for the chances of economic freedom, or we will rue another missed opportunity!
Tuesday, 26 August 2014
Requiem for Gaji
I don’t know when I first met Luvuyo “Laganja” Gaji. It
might have been at a hearsay influenced meeting at a poetry recital, or was it
a drama gathering? Wasn’t it at Moxion (Hip-hop/Kwaito artist) CD launch at the
Delft South Taxi Rank in 2006, with me invited to recite my dry angry poetry?
But though I’m not sure I’m exact about how he made me feel- after our first
talk he left me in an anxiously happy state of being: I was left thinking-“
yeyaphi leoutie?” it’s not like I didn’t know where he stayed in Delft, I had
often heard people talking about him- some phrasing him others calling him out.
But I was attracted by his love for life, and his masculine effervescence.
Gaji always seemed to be the centre of a group, with a
discussion going on or just pure frolicking and goofing around. But there was
always a tension in his face betraying an unfulfilled promise. A face tatooed a
covenant that overburdened him- an ambitiousness that threatened to sink him. A
deep-seated ambitiousness wrestling with the negativity that is ghetto life to
hopefully emerge at the other end. Also, Gaji was an innovator by nature.
Wasn’t it him who singlehandedly created one of the first drama groups in
Delft: namely, Sophumelela Drama And Entertainment Group, with the theme of success
being used to name the group?
Wasn’t he a founding member of Rainbow Arts Organisation
(R.A.O), with many other cultural activists in Delft? Wasn’t he also intimately
involved with the gospel group from Nyanga east called “Bless them all?” Did we
not always push him to the forefront when we wanted the community hall from
those corrupt anc councillors who held young people’s development with a
contempt which always left us deflated, but not Gaji? However, there was a
weakness that Gaji suffered from which was borne from his “succeed at all cost
mantra” which seemed to dominate his life; that is, the inability to respect
history and how we should archive it in our minds as blacks at the margins; for
example in an article pasted on the R.A.O offices in Delft, where they are
interviewed by the Cape Argus or some other mainstream newspaper, him and Sisa
Makaula, in the article in question they erroneously claim they created a group
which was created by a collective, I.e. Rainbow Arts Organisation, a gross error
if ever there was one! This corruption of history or the correct historical
story or narrative would later trickle down to cultural groups like Lingua
Franca, where those who started it are erased from its inception and its character
is diluted, and a success driven-happy-go-lucky-one-love deep- people movement
is created under the guise of professionalisation.
Be that as it may, when I heard Luvuyo “laGanja” Gaji was no
more, something in me seemed to seep out and I couldn’t take it back, it was
like a broken tap that just won’t or can’t be fixed. I kept crying “what a
waste, or God what a waste”, thinking of Gaji as that water that ought to
quench the thirst of a thirsty community slowly dying of thirst. Luvuyo Gaji was the water that brought us to
life from the precipice of dehydration; this dehydration emanating from a
herculean task of trying to fashion artistic careers in this desolate milieu or
desert we find ourselves in Cape Town. As he leaves us with all his
imperfections, we are left with a question to whoever is in control of these
matters; we ask-“ how do you take Luvuyo whilst we still learning from him,
learning not to be “intlama” or fools, learning to dream and be actional
towards fulfilling the very dreams that overburdened and left him sombre draining
his mellifluous saying, “halala gobongwana” of its symbolical substance, so,
God or Qamata as he often called him, how could you impoverish us like this?
God how could you allow
Gaji to escape to the land of our defeated ancestors whilst he has not finished
his individual and collective work, that is, the transformation of this society
into one that doesn’t demonise black dreams but caresses and affirms them? How
could you God?
This has been the
question that dominated my mind since Gaji left us almost two months ago. When this
difficult question ambushes me, and I think about it, I’m often left emotional
hence my absence from his funeral and nemilaliso, I kept asking myself, how
could I face Gaji in that coffin knowing very well that we nowhere close to
materialising all those utopian dreams we discussed at his house. How could I
be there when I knew his child will never know how it feels to have him say to
him or her, “uyintlama, mntanam” or his legendary adage when his surprised or
happy- “halala gobongwana!!”
I couldn’t, I hope his family and friends will forgive me!
In 1961, the world famous Algerian/ Martinique revolutionary
named Frantz Fanon on his death bed in a country he deemed a land of lynchers (U.S.A),
a country, he had reservations about and didn’t want to go to for hospitalization after
he got sick, in a correspondence with Roger Tayeb, his friend, had this to say
about death:
“Death is always with us and what matters is not whether we
can escape it, but whether we have achieved the maximum for the ideas we have
made our own….We are nothing on earth if we are not in the first place the
slave of a cause, the cause of the people the cause of justice and liberty”.
Death might have robbed us of Luvuyo Gaji the person, but it
has left us with a baton which Gaji dropped on that fateful day. Hence, it is
up to us to pick it up and finish the race or to remain crippled by sorrow (something
he would have accused us being intlama for if he were alive) or to do what we
need to do- which is, to fulfil his mission in the Fanonian sense, and never
ever betray it!
Hamba Kahle Mqithi, mna nditshayile okwangoku kwaye
ndiyabulela!!!
Halala Gobongwana!!!
Tuesday, 10 June 2014
DO YOU BOO!.. On DA poets, hyper individualism and Black pain erasure
I lost my mother four years ago. Her name was Nowatu Linah
Mpemnyama. Apparently her name was a bastardisation of this refrain,
“Nokuwa-tu”, which means, you will all fail – fail to destroy her, derail her
and so on. I figure issues of Xhosa jealousy paranoia, and witchcraft fears
were behind her naming. Like most black females the intersectional nature of
exploitative and oppressive social mores which dizzied most of her generation
didn’t spare her too; but I glean and value her valour which was constructed
from a position of weakness.
Her ability to resist is best represented by a spectacle
they once created, her and her octogenarian friend whom we referred to as Magogo.
They were at a Delft South ward ANC “old people”, end of year vote baiting feeding
scheme. The story goes as follows: as they entered the hall, moans and groans emerged
from the people – they had been verbally abusing the councillor for years, accusing
her of being a chronic bungler, who along with her ward leadership always failed
to implement proper service delivery. Because they were elders, they could not
be denied the food parcels. So as they were leaving the venue they started
again, calling the whole thing a farce, and calling out the councillor and her
ANC lackeys on their corruption. The ANC people at the gathering got very angry.
They yelled (I could hear them because our families house in Delft is exactly
opposite the venue – the rent office, where the gathering was held – in
earshot), “ningamaxhegwazana anjani? Nitya ukutya kwethu nogqiba niyas’thuka”
basically meaning “how dare you eat our food and then swear at us, what kind of
elders are you?” Magogo in her characteristic, shrill retorted back, “sitya
ukutya kukaMandela apha.” “We are eating Mandela’s food, not yours”, and they
left.
Now this scene enters my mind when I think of a recent Poetry
Workshop I attended. Facilitated by one Dejavu Tafari and Vus’muzi Phakathi, ‘poetically’ themed- ‘with these
words’, with an air of apprehension I attended. To my knowledge and from
what I saw, the workshop was about how to perfect the art of performance poetry
quilted with efforts to construct a united front to create a thriving
poetic/artistic market. To their credit the two handled the workshop very well.
But I was not there for that, I was there for the discussions that were
promised after the performances. As I mature in art I’m beginning to appreciate
the discussions more than the art.
Before the workshop ended all of us performed a few of our
pieces and peer critique was offered and accepted in a jovial comradely
fashion. Now as we were about to leave, I eventually got a chance to ask the
question that brought me there in the first place. I asked on the link between
art and politics and the role poets should play in the cultivation of the
African mind. I even went further, to drive on the point; seeing that South
Africa is one of the most unequal societies in the world, what should poets do
with this disheartening reality?
Vus’muzi’s postmodernist leanings betray him as he wisecracks
in a polished accent “do you boo.” Apparently this saying is from one Mfundo
Ntobongwana, whom, as it seems from these poets, to have brought finality to an
annoying debate. With shock permeating my face, I pressed on, “but isn’t that a
cop-out for socially aloof art. Didn’t groups like Mdali and Mihloti from the
Black Consciousness Movement (B.C.M), as well as the Black Arts Movement settle
this debate in the 60’s and 70’s respectively?”
I could see I was annoying those people, and another poet,
who told me straight to my face he didn’t enjoy my “political” stuff, suggested
that in the history of poetry there have always been, even at times of war,
poets that only wrote on love. He made a self- referential example, “me I write
about God, I could write about those Nigerian girls [abducted by Boko Haram],
but I don’t, I have no desire for that, do you my brother” he said with the
others. I tried to give my take on the dangers of this ‘do you boo’ business, I
failed.
On my way home my thoughts lingered towards my mother and one
of her famous sayings – ‘sofa sifundisa’, meaning we will teach till we die. I
also thought of all those poets, writers, painters, who just can’t crack this ‘do
you boo’ nonsense, what happens to them?
So I went on Facebook to update my shock at this hyper individualised
poetry which seems to be a standard today. The ‘do you boo brigade’ came to my
wall to defend themselves, and as I watched I was struck by how all these
defences reminded me of Lindiwe Mazibuko. At first I christened this sort of poetry
‘D.A poetry', but that didn’t go far enough. It didn’t wrestle with the racial
hues of these blacks that have popularised an ‘art for art’s sake’ right wing
political canon. So I called it ‘Lindiwe Mazibuko poetry’, and I personified it,
thus: Lindiwe Mazibuko poetry is characterised by hyper individualism, a
suppressed contempt for black people and their pain as well as deep seated desire
to gloss over reality with Godly, Buddhist invocations. I went on to advice: if
you are a ‘self-respecting’ darkie run away when you encounter Mazibuko poets.
I felt I had not done enough to explain this Mazibuko matter,
so I augmented my theory thus: Lindiwe Mazibuko poetry also has at its core the
desire for a post racial South Africa, which is rooted on the notion of a raceless
nirvana.
Still reeling, I stumbled upon a Centre for African Poetry article
of an interview with Kelwyn Sole, shared by a friend on Facebook. Defining
beautifully the tension between art and politics, in it, the poet/academic Sole
meditates as such:
“In the decade or so after liberation, some quarters in South
African literature were arguing that politics as a theme was made redundant by
the end of apartheid. Over time this view has been shown to be implausible.
Moreover, whatever their intentions, those who argue it ended up in effect
blocking political and social criticism at a crucial transitional stage. This
being said, I guess my own definition of the word “political” has always been
inclusive, because many aspects of our lives have a political dimension or are
caught up in political issues. This of course includes our personal lives
(although I don’t like poetry that gets to wrapped up in the personal it can’t see
anything else.)”
Now with Kelwyn Sole and my beloved mother affirming me, I say
to those ‘Lindiwe Mazibuko poets’ and many other like-minded artists, NOWATU!!!
Some of us won’t and can’t get swept up by your black pain unseeing post-modernist
hogwash. In a racially unequal society like ours the cultivation of a socially
sensitive black aesthetic offers more for the future of this country!
I say do TRUTH boo! We don’t care much about YOU.
Eusebius McKaiser crippled analysis
Eusebius McKaiser, as an individual
epitomizes the post-94 “Jack of all trades” mantra; which centers itself, as an
ideology, on being good on many fronts. McKaiser is a juggling act aficionado of
note: part academic, part social commentator, part author, part radio
personality. The problem with this is that you become stretched, such that you
never master anything. This often leads to what is called in ghetto football
parlance - ‘ukushay’ithembisa’- feigning doing something when you are not. Now ‘ithembisa’
or feigning is synonymous with football; when a player feigns a strike at goal
posts to trick defenders to facilitate scoring – Jabu Pule is a feigner of
note. So is Eusebius McKasier – unfortunately.
In a poorly written article titled ‘EFFwould be perplexed by power’, McKaiser erroneously accuses the EFF of having a
political vision lacking clarity, feasibility, and coherence in its ideology.
He fails to follow his own supposed clear argumentation by grounding his take
on a misreading of what an anarchist is; this from a supposed serious social
commentator is astounding!
Recently, when Barack Obama was commenting
on the racism scandal by the Los Angeles Clippers owner, he intimated as such:
“When folks want to advertise their
ignorance we must never stand in their way”.
If you are a serious reader of all
revolutions, and the many strands of thought which animated them, you will
appreciate that an anarchist is an anti-state ideology which seeks to wilt or
destroy the state without even capturing it – a marked difference from the EFF
which is a Marxist/Leninist/Fanonian movement. The EFF expresses an unashamed
need to capture the state and make it respond to the needs of the majority; a
clear distinction if you ‘don’t advertise your ignorance’ for the whole country
but actually take time and read its easily available literature.
This first horrible misreading leads McKaiser to make other embarrassing claims like the
analogy of a post revolution moment when EFF is confronted with governing and
they suddenly realize they never signed up for such a daunting task. What this claim suffers from is a
glaring failure to characterize the EFF adequately. This is the hallmark of ‘ithembisa’
– you feign thinking and being engaged until your baseless claims become truth,
but only to you and your lackeys. Another disconcerting advert for ignorance.
Let’s allow Mr. McKaiser to speak:
“They are (EFF) anarchists who simply enjoy
critiquing life in post-democratic South Africa as horrible for black people
and filled with institutions that are inherently anti-black and illegitimate to
the core.
That’s the tenor of their criticism of the
current government and of their analysis of life in our country in 2014.”
What the EFF wants to do in as far as
transforming all anti-black social institutions is to capture them for the sole
purpose of what they ought to be utilized for in the first place i.e. being
used to lessen the heavy load of poverty, landlessness and nihilism which the
ANC government has failed to arrest since it came to power. So why EFF would be
hesitant at such a joyful moment beats me.
The Malema and Mngxitama quip on this
aspect does not wrestle with a simple fact: radical leaders are multi-faceted
and can adapt their politics in many spaces. The assertion that the
commander-in-chief Julius Malema and Commissar Mngxitama would be too bored
with parliamentary subcommittee meetings is another embarrassing baseless
claim. Now it seems we have a pedagogical problem with Mr. McKaiser, which can
be exorcised with these rather simplistic lines: Eusebius my brother radicalism
doesn’t get washed away by being in an institution you fundamentally dislike or
disagree with. Hasn’t the likes of Thomas Sankara, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez,
Morales et al showed us this? What happens is a thorough contestations of ideas
in a struggle terrain not of your making to invoke an in vogue Marx adage.
What slowly emerges as one critically
analyses this article and many others from the White Left is a lazy minded
anti-intellectual rejectionist failure of analysis. Most of these Quaker social
commentators often accuse the EFF of demagoguery and anti-intellectualist-rabble-rousing-trite-shouting
but they are what they criticize. So essentially McKaiser’s accusation of being
‘perplexed by power’ changes to – and faces him as its inverse opposite – him being
‘perplexed by analysis’. McKaiser clutches at straws instead of reading EFF
literature to get its clear, coherent and – I’m quick to add – feasible, vision
of a new path that it hopes to walk with societies; provided it gets the mandate
after the election on May 7.
The EFF is moving in that direction and no
mean spirited lampooning will prevent it from discharging its historical
mission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)