On 'Why Malindi cried': iLIVE
Readers respond to Justice Malala's column 'Why Malindi cried' (27 May 2012).
With reference to your article I would like to bring the following research to your attention:
The following policies with regard to political supremacy and Black administration were initiated by the British element:… 6. The recognition of Black traditions, customs, laws, and ethnic differentiation. In brief it was meant to be a devolution of political power for each ethnic group. This became known as “apartheid”. Ref. p.24 The Ethnic Struggle for Political Supremacy in South Africa 1850 -1994. By Prof. DJP Haasbroek. ISBN 0-620-26680-5.
Please note that 'apartheid' was not started by the Afrikaans people in S.A. To substantiate my case further I would like you to visit the website: www.artwork4sale.co.za and see for yourself how an Afrikaans white woman, Idalet Pauw, born in the ‘apartheid’ era depicts all races. - Erica de Kok, via email
As a ‘white’ person who came here in 2006 I cannot, nor will I ever, understand the pain that South Africans went through in the past.
From this article I am led to believe that all ‘black’ South Africans hold victimhood in their hearts, some more deeply than others. Due to the low levels of education and the violent nature of all South Africans I must look to the future for myself and my family and the decision to return to Europe in the near future, taking my (relative) wealth with me, is the only practical option.
Thank you Justice for bringing it home to me that the ‘Rainbow Nation’ is a myth and that I am at risk, due to the colour of my skin. - Phil, via email
I also believe that the agony of our past has been very poorly dealt with.
The painting is an insult to all South Africans. Let us resist with all our might any force that polarises us any further. This is not freedom of expression, but a thinly veiled attempt to destabilise our great country.
See it for what it is. - Dr Mark Blair, Limpopo, via email
I think Justice Malala completely missed it on this article.
Firstly, a cat is an animal but an animal is not a cat. Zapiro has come up with various depictions of this flawed character who happens to be our president. That portrait is everything about Zuma NOT the about the black man.
Throughout his political life from the arms deal Zuma has managed to manipulate people to sympathise with him on matters that he had proactive authority to control. He lied to the structures of the ANC and they pushed him up there. If he didn't then the "Through the eye of the needle" document would not have propelled him to where he is.
What Malala is also economical about is the the way forward for the "flawed" president. In order for the president to protect his family, the ANC from further embarrassment he MUST just zip up! The movement can also do him a huge favour by doing what is right in Mangaung to correct the mistake of the past. - Kaya, via email
Thank you for a well written and informative piece.
My personal opinion on this matter is, no human being deserves to be portrayed in this manner. Be it art or creativity in its highest form. This is a violation of ones being, president or not its just demeaning to be portrayed in this manner. This man is a husband, a father and a grandfather.
Why as a people do we feel its acceptable if we have issues to raise as a country, to raise them through exposing the presidents private parts. - Sindiswa, via email
Malindi is a lawyer. A lawyer goes to court to execute a mandate that he believes in. After all, he first step is consulting and going through the motions of mediation, arbitration and litigation is the last step. A lawyer goes to court to win. Full stop. Crying is a disgrace to the profession. - Zwelakhe Sithole, via email