[ News
| Homes
| Life
| Entertainment
| History
| Science
| Community
| Shop ]
| Sport
| Culture
| Cars
| Money
| Broadband
| Learning
| Health
| Dating
| Games ]
[ Text Only: Homepage ]
[ Graphical: Channel4 Homepage ]
[ Forum | Submit a site | Build a Site | Games | Wordz on the Street | Features | Teaching Resources | Help | Contact | Site map ]
[ Text Only: Homepage ]
[ Graphical: Channel4 Homepage ]
options_t.jsp:3:5: No tag library could be found with this URI. Possible causes could be that the URI is incorrect, or that there were errors during parsing of the .tld file.
<%@ taglib uri="/WEB-INF/tlds/origination.tld" prefix="origination" %>
^----^
options_t.jsp:3:5: No tag library could be found with this URI. Possible causes could be that the URI is incorrect, or that there were errors during parsing of the .tld file.
<%@ taglib uri="/WEB-INF/tlds/origination.tld" prefix="origination" %>
^----^
Writer: Maurice Mcleod
In Mandela - Beneath the Halo, Peter Hitchen's sets out to prove that Mandela and the African National Congress (ANC) have failed and that South Africa, with its rising crime, health problems and social inequality, is in some way worse now than it was a decade ago when white minority rule came to an end. However both of these facts should already have been clear to all but the most blinkered and uninformed of people. Mandela has lead an incredible life, but he is still human and South Africa like every other nation in the world has its fair share of problems.
Hitchens is right when he says that apartheid collapsed under the weight of $8 billion of foreign debt not the moral authority of Mandela. But he overlooks the fact that the foreign debt was largely caused by the individual and national boycotts of South African goods. These boycotts were so damaging because the liberal-left supported the struggle of the oppressed black population and Nelson Mandela provided a human focus for that struggle.
In the US alone protests lead to many universities, churches, unions and states to boycott companies that traded with the racist regime. By 1982, more than 30 colleges and universities had withdrawn more than $100 million from banks and corporations operating in South Africa. Eventually these organisations began to curtail their support of South Africa.
Apartheid and racism were tools of capitalism not hatred. While racism was undoubtedly embedded in most of the white population's psyche, the fear that kept many white people awake at night was that their privileged lives would be taken away by the black masses. South Africa had limited resources and the only way the white governments in power under apartheid could ensure they got a large enough slice of those resources was to make laws to guarantee that the large majority black population would get less than their fair share.
The New Internationalist report of 1982 showed that the average earnings for White South Africans was more than four times that of the average black South Africans. It also showed that the educational spending per capita on whites was 10 times what was spend on blacks.
In today's South Africa whites, who make up 10 percent of the countries 45 million population, still occupy 80 percent of corporate positions...
When those apartheid rules were removed many black people expected their lives to change instantly. This was not possible, and could not have been achieved by any means other than the large-scale removal and redistribution of white wealth. Now some impoverished black people under the new South Africa feel that they have a right to take away, by force, the possessions of white people whose mansions sometimes look down on their shantytowns. This is lamentable and the South African government could have done more to tackle the rising crime. However the idea of returning to a draconian police force, cracking down hard on blacks to protect whites would be abhorrent to both the black people who struggled for decades for their freedom and the rest of the feeling world that supported them in their struggle. Crime can only be tackled by speeding up the distribution of wealth and improving the housing environments that are currently breeding desperation, anger and lawlessness.
It is not all bad news. There are signs that some crime may have plateaued and some types of crime have all but disappeared in the last ten years. For example according to the latest Interpol figures nearly 4,000 deaths were blamed on political clashes ten years ago, whereas last year there were just 52.
In today's South Africa whites, who make up 10 percent of the countries 45 million population, still occupy 80 percent of corporate positions according to polling group Afrobarometer. This is brought into context by realising that a decade ago whites occupied around 99.9 percent of these roles. In 2001, seven years after the ANC came to power, a survey by Statistics South Africa showed that nearly 70 percent of black people were living in formal dwellings, compared with 35 percent in 1994.
The liberation of South Africa is an ongoing process that began when Mandela walked out of prison a free man but will carry on until all South Africans, black and white, have equal opportunities in their lives. Hitchens is unable to comprehend the importance of freedom for the black population, even if for many it has heralded no great improvement in their lifestyle.
If Mandela and his government are to blame for the growing gulf between rich and poor in South Africa it is because they were too soft on the white elite. Mandela's desire to have a painless transition was understandable and probably saved thousands of lives. However if he had convinced the rich white minority that it was in their interests to give up some of their wealth, the chances of future unrest could have been reduced. In the US many freed slaves were initially worse off because they were still in a society that was weighted against them. Some even pined for a return to the plantation. Now nearly 150 years later, even among the most deprived African American communities I challenge anyone to find a black person who would opt for slavery over the hard but relatively self-determined life they live.
Black people under the apartheid regime were not allowed to succeed. As well as the illegality of interracial marriages, black South Africans could not own certain types of property or vote. The public facilities and education that were available to them was separate and inferior. It was virtually against the law for blacks to succeed under apartheid. Now, even if still highly improbable for many, success is a possibility for ALL South Africans.