Please enter your login details

You can also sign in with your Sowetan LIVE
and Sport LIVE account details.
   Sign Up   Forgot password?

Sign in with:

 
  • All Share : 41815.36
    UP 1.79%
    Top 40 : 3443.42
    UP 3.06%
    Financial 15 : 12000.90
    UP 1.42%
    Industrial 25 : 47656.81
    UP 1.47%

  • ZAR/USD : 9.5183
    UP 0.92%
    ZAR/GBP : 14.4406
    UP 0.29%
    ZAR/EUR : 12.2929
    UP 1.05%
    ZAR/JPY : 0.0930
    UP 0.63%
    ZAR/AUD : 9.3528
    UP 0.98%

  • Gold : 1377.9050
    DOWN -1.08%
    Platinum : 1459.0000
    DOWN -1.75%
    Silver : 22.5243
    DOWN -1.41%
    Palladium : 747.0000
    UP 0.54%
    Brent Crude Oil : 104.520
    DOWN -0.27%

  • All data is delayed by 15 min. Data supplied by I-Net Bridge
    Hover cursor over this ticker to pause.

Tue May 21 19:10:03 SAST 2013

'I'm no racist'

Artist Brett Murray | 25 May, 2012 00:26
Protesters outside the Johannesburg High Court yesterday with their own version of Brett Murray's 'The Spear' Picture: ALON SKUY

Artist Brett Murray, in his affidavit, explains why he painted 'The Spear'

"At the outset, I would like to say that I am a proud South African and a former supporter of the ANC. I am not a racist. I do not produce art with an intention to hurt, humiliate or insult, and that includes the painting that has caused this controversy.

I emphatically deny that any such intention motivated the painting or exhibiting of The Spear. This will be borne out by my explanation as to the background and context of my work. The Spear has a dual purpose: it is a work of protest or resistance art, and it is a satirical piece.

I would like to explain my history to give a context to my work.

I was born in South Africa and raised, in the 1970s and 1980s, in a society that was perverted, controlled by corrupt, morally bereft politicians who treated South Africa - my country - as a personal fiefdom of their racist elite. To preserve their position of illegitimate power, tactics of intimidation, coercion, violence, manipulation, and misuse of intelligence and police forces, were the norm.

Censorship prevailed and freedom of expression was severely curtailed. White men, such as me, were conscripted into the army to take up arms against fellow South Africans, to fight a war we did not believe in against enemies that we considered to be friends.

I [therefore], in order to avoid conscription, studied for 10 years, and thereafter went into self-imposed exile in London until the ANC was unbanned and I returned to South Africa.

While I was studying, I was involved in anti-apartheid activities in the trade union movement, church groups, youth groups, and the End Conscription Campaign. As an artist, I produced and designed banners, posters, stickers, protest worker diaries and the like in support of the struggle.

It was growing up in this apartheid society that caused me, from an early age, to think about issues of power, race, politics, patriarchy, oppression and the manipulation of the media.

Indeed, these themes have by and large prevailed through my work as an artist over many years.

When I studied for my master's in fine arts, I reflected satirically on the apartheid regime. The works consisted of satirical figures describing policemen with dynamite in their ears, pigs as soldiers.

Like many other South Africans, I embraced the dawn of a new South Africa. I was teaching art at Stellenbosch University in 1994 when South Africa's first democratic election was held and, as a supporter of the ANC, I proudly cast my ballot on April 27 1994.

That day signified hope, freedom, an end to tyranny and the dawn of a new era for me, my countrymen and the whole world. South Africa moved from being a pariah state to being the proudest nation in the world.

As our democracy developed, cracks began to show in the way that the ruling elite was implementing the ideals of the Freedom Charter and our constitution.

From my perspective as an artist I felt a sense of betrayal, where heroes of the struggle now appeared to be corrupt, power-hungry and greedy, or where ideals that many had died or made sacrifices for were abandoned on the altar of expedience.

Over the past few years one ongoing narrative in our society has been the story of the first applicant [President Jacob Zuma]. For instance, in a judgment implicating the first applicant, a court found that the first applicant was closely linked to his former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, who was found guilty of corruption.

Another controversial feature of the first applicant's public life was the failure by the prosecuting authorities to proceed with corruption charges against him, notwithstanding the apparent existence of evidence to sustain such charges.

Details of the first applicant's sex life have been well documented in the public domain. Notwithstanding the fact that he has four wives, he has engaged in extra-marital sex on at least two occasions.

For me, satire is critical entertainment. While I might be attacking and ridiculing specific targets, what I am actually doing is articulating my vision of an ideal world in which I want to live . In this instance, that preferred ideal in the South African context is the Freedom Charter.

What satire can do in a political context is that it can be seen as a political contestation as it opens political debate.

The resulting debate that has surrounded this work is in itself evidence that this does happen and that artwork can provoke these debates, however unsettling they might be.

There is therefore no reason for artists to be censored, however uncomfortable this might be for individuals and for society at large.

For me, The Spear has a far broader meaning than some of the public discourse on its meaning, including the first applicant's interpretation. It is a metaphor for power, greed and patriarchy."

SHARE YOUR OPINION

If you have an opinion you would like to share on this article, please send us an e-mail to the Times LIVE iLIVE team. In the mean time, click here to view the Times LIVE iLIVE section.

SecretVoice

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Let me first of all say that I found the painting from Brett Murray disgusting and in bad taste. I have read his affidavit and understand why he did it but I still find the painting vulgar and in bad taste. 

Yesterday the Advocate for Zuma's legal team broke down and cried including the spokesman of the Presidency Jackson Mtembu. This was so out of place in a court of law that it clearly something is very wrong here. The argument with the judge was mainly on the issue as to why this painting was racist. Ever since the beginning of the controversy  ANC  leaders have called the painting and everybody supporting it racists. Personally I think this was very irresponsible and coupled to the fact that they called for marches and sit ins at court it was downright criminal. As leaders they should know this can cause retaliation and violence. Surely this is not the way to solve this issue.

The key question here is why does black people in general see this painting as racist and white people in general not. Is it only a tool used by the elite to control the so called masses  or are black people genuinely feel it is an attack on their race. If the latter is true we must find out why and then fix it. I believe we can only do this by talking to each other. Let us try and understand what lies behind this thinking. 

If I consider yesterday's crying incident I can not but notice the breakdown occurred when the advocate was stumped. He had no reasonable explanation for the judge as to why the painting was racist. It obviously did not help that the judge was white. Herein for me lies the real problem. When a black person competes with a white person and he or she is on the losing end then the issue immediately becomes a racist issue.  

The painting is a metaphor for power, greed and patriarchy as demonstrated by Jacob Zuma in his administration. Black South Africans know it is true but they are unable to explain it hence their fall back on the race card.

To me this racism issue will destroy South Africa for everyone and needs to be dealt with. We need to openly explore it and kill it off before it completely destroys our country. Black people must stop running away from their failures but face them head on and white people must stop gloating in black peoples failures.

Don't get me wrong. I don't for one minute say all black or white people are guilty of this but unfortunately it is very evident amongst political leaders. 

We must take this Brett Murray painting issue and dissect it, discuss it until we  can honestly say we understand each other and from here onwards we are going to deal with controversy without hauling out the race card. 
Avatar

Theye

Posted 361 days ago
Please give us South Africans who did not find this "disgusting, vulgar and in bad taste" and who understood immediatly the message that Brett was trying to put across, a different method to show our disgust at the president of this country.

A method, keeping in mind that most attempts to bring him into court or show our disgust at he's openly shameful sexual shenanigans have brought no reaction except a defence that it is he's custom. ART is exactly that it brings out something in EVERYONE. You for example were disgusted by it seems a picture of nakedness then you understood the message.Would you have understood the message without the nakedness> The ANC is very buncomfortable with this painting because simply put it is the first successful attempt to expose the emporer without "clothing" when ball other legal and attempts have been scuppered. that is the power of ART and Freedom of expression!!
Avatar

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 361 days ago
You are lending ammunition to Mantashe's Penis Revolutionaries by including race in it. But the main culprit here is Zuma himself. He has a way of getting everyone to do his dirty stuff, and appear. He did it in his rape case, his corruption charges, all his appointments, in expelling Malema from his party, forcing his NEC to show 'unity' behind his twisted mind. He gave all government posts to compromised individuals, so that he can abuse them, without objections. Accountability is foreign to him. His viciousness is incredible. He even ousted his 'best' comrade from power, forced his 'best' friends' daughter satiate his sexual lust.

I am disappointed by this advocate, who resorts to exaggeration and flattery to assist the defects in his argument and reasoning, in dishonest submission and deference to the ANC's outrageous claims. All he needed was to just turn down this crass blackmail and exploitation of his suffering under apartheid. This is long past, and ratcheting it now is dishonest, and wipes away all the respect we regarded him with.

Art can never be universal. It can never be aggreable to everyone. It depends and is determined by what works at a given time, for a given society. No one should evaluate taste or beauty for another. Otherwise he suppresses the other's taste and judgment. Any search for beauty is fruitless. Only those who judge art and, based on training and experience, are able to draw distinctions of a standard of art indirectly. The critics must also have a grasp of reason and analytical ability, and must be free of any prejudice. They can't allow racial prejudice to blind their consideration, because prejudice of any form destroys sound judgment and twists products of intellectual faculties. Critics examine the picture free of social and cultural influence, from an a-historical perspective.
Avatar

Radio

Posted 361 days ago
Everybody keeps looking at the painting and relating it to Apartheid and racism. Murray's intention was neither that of apartheid or racism.

For some reason, everybody jumps to the conclusion of such a painting being a dicrimination. Its a form of expression that has been used for hundreds of years. Art isnt about painting pretty pictures when you feel like it. At is an important form of expression and speech that should be upheld by our constitution. The painting is purely a reflection of our leaders and their absurdity.

As I stated, the intention of the painting was not racial nor does it reflect on our past. It reflects the present moment and the corrupt Government. Let's all be honest with ourselves; Such a message was going to be sent whether it was in the form of a painting or something else. By choosing to relate it to racism as such, then I believe it is the individual's of South Africa that are not moving forward. We have every opportunity to leave Apartheid and racism behind us and we don't. Focus on the intention of this painting.

The message, even though it was disgustingly put, is important to us all.
Avatar

Ngelengele

Posted 361 days ago
@SecretVioce

The painter may or may not be racist we will never know. To describe his art as racism is another topic. With limited explanation I would say anyone who percieve this art to offend/insult his/her race culture would see it as racist. This brings the element of tolerance and understanding how will your work/words be seen by other people, cultures etc. If you choose to ignore those than you are racist.

Racism is very difficult phenomenon to prove. How do you explain statements like, "I just don't like him but I don't hate him", "I do not hate black people I just prefer white people" etc., there are clear racism undertones in these statements yet you cannot say someone uttering any of them is racist. If there is a slight idea that what you are doing could be seen potraying any race inferior, why do you do it?

The arguments that people who see race in this art are not open minded about it, seems to suggestes that the painter was open minded. If he was, surely he should have thought of the all reactions and consider them when painting.
Avatar

SecretVoice

Posted 361 days ago
Ngelengele I am afraid but I have to disagree with you. Let us take a white man who has the same reputation on out of wedlock sex as Zuma has. Would a painting by a black artist of Steve Hofmeyer with his genitals exposed mean he is racist. I do not think so. With what I know of Steve I will think the artist says that he has a sex problem. I remain that it is for me a vulgar way to express yourself but under no circumstances will I classify it as racist. You obviously do and it is this difference of opinion that we must solve.
Avatar

Ngelengele

Posted 361 days ago
@ Radio

"The painting is purely a reflection of our leaders and their absurdity", " the intention of the painting was not racial nor does it reflect on our past". How do you know? You seems to think that your intepretation of this art is the correct one.

How does the hanging penis of the black president "reflects the present moment and the corrupt Government". Moving forward should never be at an expence of where we are coming from. The expectation that we should conveniently forget what apartheid did (exposing our fathers private parts in public under the disguise of searching), is misleading. Not only to black people but also to whites because it paints a wrong picture of South African problems with race.

"Focus on the intention of this painting", what was the intentions exactly? Isn't your statement what this whole saga is about? The intention is not what YOU prescribe it to be.

You said "Such a message was going to be sent whether it was in the form of a painting or something else", Why choose this one?
Avatar

Scribbles

Posted 361 days ago
Ngelengele said, "This brings the element of tolerance and understanding how will your work/words be seen by other people, cultures etc. If you choose to ignore those than you are racist."

No, it certainly does not. Or are we now expected to classify everyone with a lack of tact as racist/sexist/anti-religious/anti-semitic/islamophobic/anti-education/anti-gay/elitist? Here's an interesting titbit, some people don't want to go through a series of checks and balances every time they express themselves. And some people don't hold the same priorities as you. This does not make them racist.

Actually, I'm going to take my point one step further and say that pondering the effect your expression might take and changing it to suit a race, is far more racist than simply treating everyone the same.

Ngelengele said, "The arguments that people who see race in this art are not open minded about it, seems to suggestes that the painter was open minded."

You're putting words in the mouths of others. Pointing out that one group is close minded certainly doesn't automatically suggest that another is open. Please refrain from twisting points to suit your own.
Avatar

omo.naija

Posted 361 days ago
@SecretVoice...One of my best friends was a british kid who i knew from the age of 3.I never saw him as my superior or perceive him to be smarter than me or better than me.This is all because of my environment and how i was raised.Today i am a grown man who does not see color,i only found out i was black when i migrated to south Africa and experienced r@cism first hand.

Before then i referred to all my friends by their names and not their race.That has changed over the past few years because of new environment (SA).Now i make comments like : do you remember my white friend James".If i made such a comment in Niger!a ,people will turn and stare at me like W.T.F but in SA it is perfectly normal.

What is going in SA affect all of us even those of us who not South Africans.I thought SA was a place i could raise my kids but i am currently disscussing with wife to have my two sons sent to Niger!a to live with and be raised by mum.The reason? I want my kids to grow up in non racial society,i want my kids to compete on the same level ground in academics with other kids without BEE advantages,i want my kids to not see color but to treat each individual as a human being.
Avatar

SecretVoice

Posted 361 days ago

Wikipedia describes racism as follows:
Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others, [1][2] or as practices that discriminate against members of particular racial groups,[1] for example by perpetuating unequal access to resources between groups.[3]
The definition of racism is controversial both because there is little scholarly agreement about what the word "race" means, and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't constitute discrimination.[4] Some definitions would have it that any assumption that a person's behavior would be influenced by their racial categorization is racist, regardless of how seemingly benign such assumptions might be. Other definitions would only include conscious malignant forms of discrimination.[5] Among the questions about how to define racism are the question of whether to include forms of discrimination that are unintentional, such as making assumptions about preferences or abilities of others based on racial stereotypes, whether to include institutionalized forms of discrimination such as the circulation of racial stereotypes through the media and whether to include the socio-political dynamics of social stratification that sometimes have a racial component.
"Racism" and "racial discrimination" are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the terms racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination.[6]
In politics, racism is commonly located on the far right due to the far right’s common association with nativism, racism, and xenophobia.[7] In history, racism has been a major part of the political and ideological underpinning of genocides such as the holocaust, but also in colonial contexts such as the rubber booms in South America and the Congo, and in the European conquest of the Americas and colonization of Africa, Asia and Australia. It was also a driving force behind the transatlantic slave trade, and behind states based on racial segregation such as the USA in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and South Africa under apartheid.[8] Practices and ideologies of racism are universally condemned by the United Nations in the Declaration of Human Rights.

I am going to allow this because Wikipedia is open source and thus unlikely to sue us, but please in future rather post links. -ED

Avatar

SecretVoice

Posted 361 days ago
Omo-naija

Your experience is proof that we have a problem. The question is why. I will concede that there are white people who still live in the past and are born racists. My experience however show that they are a minority in the white segment of our population. I personally think the current government is the biggest driver of racism in South Africa. You said it but BEE and AA are inherently racist practices. Every time somebody in government fails and people critisize them especially white people then they are immediately labelled as racists. You see I think they have no other option but to do it because they have no other reasonable response. Just like it happened to the advocate who burst into tears when he was cornered yesterday.
Avatar

Ngelengele

Posted 361 days ago
@ SecretVoice

We may agree to disagree because we may never know what the painter wanted to achieve. I believe that understanding and being sensetive to other people's culture would go a long way in solving SA's problems. This constant expectations that everyone should see things the way other people do is misleading the country because it is not done properly. You cannot drive someone to a corner before you make him understand what you want. First start by winning the heart and mind.

@omo.naija

You are not solving nor providing a solution by perpetuating the same mentality. Whether you are black or white, to suggest that black people in SA are incompetent and inferior esposes your own prejudice against SA black people.
Avatar

SecretVoice

Posted 361 days ago
Ngelengele again I have to disagree with you. We know exactly what the artist meant by this painting. He clearly states his intention in his affidavit. You must ask yourself why do you not want to believe him. herein I think lies the real question. Does his affidavit not fit into your agenda. Why not. Do you want his affidavit to be a lie. Why??? I think as I have said before herein lies our problem. Some people like yourself wants incidents of racism otherwise you have to explain the failures of some black people and you don't have the answers. I may be wrong and I certainly do not want to offend you but this is my thinking in a nutshell.
Avatar

datraveller

Posted 361 days ago
Well written, that 1st post!

@Ngelengele
You are saying that we will never know if it is racism when a white man criticises a black man. In this case we know for sure that was not the case as we know the character of this man and he has stated it himself. For everyone’s benefit let's not jump to the conclusion of racism until someone actually states something that is clearly racist like "I don't hate black people I just don't like them" that my friend I am afraid IS racist. That have actually mentioned race in their statement – other than the fact that Zuma is black and the artist is white and he is criticising him is the only way anyone could wishfully surmise there was racism involved.
Avatar

Ngelengele

Posted 361 days ago
@SecretVoice

You are right when you say my problem in not believing him, but you are wrong to say/think I want him to lie. Your question could easily be: Why are you so ready to believe him? Does his affidavit fit YOUR agenda?

I would be among the first to agree whenever black people fails, yet I do not believe that is the point here. I believe the issues of government failures (which I agree with) are used to perpetuate racism. Exposing Zuma's genetals boarders (if not similar) very close to the treatment of black people in the past. Now, the question is: Why do people refuse to see this? Have they suddenly forgot or it suit their agenda to conveniently ignore that past?

The assumption that the defence to people dignity amounts to defending their failures, is very poor and unfortunate. These cheap shots diverts the focus on issues whiles seeking to affirm the opposition.
Avatar

SecretVoice

Posted 361 days ago
Ngelengele your point is valid and I am considering it. I am pleased that we agree on the failures of government and its leaders. Your point about the naked inspections of black people is valid. Just like the Boers had to find a way to forgive the English for what they did to their women and children in the concentration camp in Bloemfontein you guys will have to do the same on these inspections. I know it is not easy but it is a hundred years ago and a lot has changed since then. Please note that I certainly do no want to trivialize this unbelievable and inhuman behavior but we have to somehow move on from there. We need to talk my friend and I have recently visited Soweto and I saw a spirit there amongst the people that if we can spread that throughout our country we will have a wonderful future. As a white person I would like all my white brothers and sisters to experience this spirit of goodness as I believe it will open their eyes to realize we are all the same. We have the same hopes and aspirations for our children and our fellow man and women.

I have a golf game this afternoon so I am sighing off. Have a fantastic weekend. Until next time.....
Avatar

Sikolemamba

Posted 361 days ago
1.
Who are we to judge extra marital activities of anyone? Are we perfect? Brett Murray, are you perfect? Are you without sin? Is this the stone you want to continue to cast?
2.
Zuma may have been sent to various courts, his government may have disappointed millions of the people who voted it into power, but I really do not think that he deserves to be portrayed in that fashion.
3.
What Brett Murray is in effect saying is that as much as some whites may have abhorred apartheid, they still did not make any effort to understand and respect African culture. And yet they live in Africa and have no regard for fundamental African values, Humility and Respect. They still do not know what UBUNTU really means. They are still very arrogant and are not willing to listen to anyone but themselves.
4.
UBUNTU does not exist in anyone who continues to defend "the spear".
5.
I find it quite disturbing that the Goodman Gallery saw it fit to go ahead with the display of "the spear "and yet they took steps not to exhibit any works which could offend Muslims and Jews. Are they in fact not the Badman gallery?
6.
This is in effect saying that what Africans have to say about what they find disrespectful is irrelevant to the Goodman Gallery, Brett Murray and to the greater white South Africa. I will not waste my time talking about the Africans like the Goodman gallery’s security guard whose minds have found self oppression a stimulating exercise. What is disappointing with them is that as much as some of them could be well educated, they still have not freed their minds from the effects of 400 years of subjugation. Clearly their masters did not teach them any such courses at University and they are not smart enough to learn anything significant on their own.

7. How I wish Biko was alive.
Avatar

Wiseguy

Posted 361 days ago
@Sikolemamba.....the point you make that Brett Murray may not understand african culture or its value system is valid......BUT that does NOT make him a racist....it makes him ignorant !

But he also has and is entitled to a culture and value system....one that says an elected leader is appointed by the people to serve the people ! He may be stating through his art work that our sitting president is at odds with his cultural and value system ?

So maybe their is a lot of ignorance on both sides of this debate/disagreement, but there is NO racism, of that I am sure!

There is a huge difference between racism and ignorance......and for the most senior leaders of the ANC to say he is racist is very simply - incorrect and wrong!
Avatar

ObservantOpinion

Posted 361 days ago
@Ngelenge

"How does the hanging penis of the black president............."

Its the hanging penis of the president, who just happens to be black.

You see its his actions, not his race, that is in question.

You cant start the new chapter in your life until stop re-reading the old one. Moving forward the old chapter is not meant to be forgotten, but its also not meant to held on to in order to use it as leverage and as an excuse to run rampant and abuse your powers.
Avatar

DocMarhubane

Posted 361 days ago
My understanding is from a generic statement that says a picture speaks in unlimited words, Brett has explained in his words and soo did Zuma and his Legal team. There are facts that you are deliberately ignoring in your justification and Brett's justification, the fact that Zuma is the current head of state and he is Black, it gets worse if you are going to add variances like where we come from as a country (apartheid era), where Black is inferior and White is superior. Even in those days not a single day did Black artist reflect White leadership by painting them nacked nor was any other head of state in the world painted naked.

How do we accept his justification and or reasoning without considering the basics such as :
Black majority in this country who are black
Respect and Black cultural background,
Democratic country led by Black Head of State, and others

The truth is as Black man i am enraged by this and yes my interpretation and many other Black South Africans will bring in the race issue. "White superior and Black inferior"

Zulu culture and tradition allows poligamy...is it inferior? Are the courts that are Black led inferior and power hungry? the very judicial system that Zuma was subjected to for the allegations Brett alluded to. And are these the failures you/Brett refeing to?
Avatar

omo.naija

Posted 361 days ago
@Ngelengele

I will like to apologize for the comment i made earlier about black South Africans.I was out of line and insensitive.I assure you that i have no prejudice towards black South Africans.What i was trying to put accross in my comment is that though black South Africans owe me nothing,i feel let down by them.Allow me to elaborate.

I have been in SA for close to a decade now and the general perception i have of black South Africans is that of a people who are not "serious" about their own future.Black South Africans had the golden opportunity to show the rest of Africa how things are supposed to be done but the opportunity was wasted.

The ANC inherited a beautiful country but has been messing it up ever since.It saddens and shames me as African to see the slow destruction which is being metted out to this country by it's current leaders.At the same time majority of black South Africans as per my observation do not perform well in their work place even with the several advantages being given to them.

It is high time as Africans that we tell ourselves the truth and work collectively to fix the problems in our society so that we can all have a better future.
Avatar

SaziMatshoba

Posted 361 days ago
People must understand that when you talk of culture, you must not use it as a blanket to cover your misleading ways. Department of Health issues statements saying 1 man 1 woman on their campain against HIV and AIDS, and here is the country's leader doing the opposite marriage does not take away the fact that you are having more then 1 partner. We all arms saying "ukuthwala" is against the law fighting for the rights of children, where as "ukuthwala" is part of culture to other ethnic groups. So which culture is more important to others? Our current government is showing to much of contrudiction towards its policies and how they behave themselves. It sad to see that even woman they are surpoting this issue of zuma having multiple of wives where as when it happens in their own lives they cry woman oppression. Every individual in this country who has seen the past or experianced it and have the opportunitity to explore the "new SA" is seeing how badly is zuma running the country. to all south african lets not put race as our first defence lets own up to our mistakes and find solutions.
Avatar

JJRetief

Posted 361 days ago
@Ngelengele & SecretVoice thank you for your constructive debate on this issue. It made this article a lot more interesting for me. Wish we could all respect each other's opinions like this all the time.
Avatar

Ngelengele

Posted 361 days ago
@datraveler
You assume your own theories and you put them as my words, I never said we "we will never know if it is racism when a white man criticises a black man". How does the stated character of the painter proves that he is not racist? Can you explain? How can you prove that a statement: "I don't hate black people I just don't like them". Because there is words black and white in them?

@SecretVoice
People have generally forgiven the ills of apartheid. I believe healing is a process and instigations of this nature are not helping that process. We can choose to force people to get over-it or we can choose to help ease the healing process. As adults, our children will judge us by how succeeded in this. Enjoy your weekend too.

@ObservantOpinion
What actions justifies hanging his penis like that, exactly? People must resist this temptation of prescribing to others on how, when and at what point should they forget their past and move on.
Avatar

Ngelengele

Posted 361 days ago
@omo.naija
I am sorry to hear your bad experiences, I believe people are and will remain different. There are many opportunities to take advantage of and I am afraid not everyone of them is being exploited especially by black people. I have been into Nigeria, Burkina Faso and Ghana, my experience there is exactly that people are not fully exploiting their resources to their benefit. It is a difficult pill to swallow.

The government has problems and I believe they can do much better, yet I wish you have been around before the ANC took over. The "beautiful country" was not built for all citizens. What the ANC has done for an average South African can be seen in most township and rural area, where an access to basic needs like electicity and clean water is the reality. Access to better education (universities and colleges) is now accepted as a common norm. Human settlement/housing has been improved to all citizens within good access to their everyday needs like jobs and cities.

The expectations are high from this government not only from the Africans and everyone around the world but mainly from black South Africans. There is a growing feeling that the government is letting our people down, this has been said many times by Vavi (Cosatu) and other leaders. ANC is aware of the problem, yet they show no urgency, another bitter pill to swallow. I still believe though that things will improve for better.
Avatar

BornAgain

Posted 361 days ago
The statement "I am no racist" should not be read literally, Murray is an artist remember???

Maybe he is using dirge, dialictics or some complex figure of speech that simple minds like ours cannot understand.
Avatar

AlfonsoX

Posted 361 days ago
When I first saw the painting I liked it as I like and respect Murray's work generally. I was disapointed when the issue of race was raised. Now I am disapointed that I did not see the racial reference earlier.

Rascism is an inarticulate monster. I prefer to apply common sence. By common sence I refer to ideas that are common to a group of people or a historical discourse that need not be interrogated or justifed to be spoken or understood.

For instance there is a common sence idea (with a long history) that black men cannot be virtuous because of their anamilistic (sexual) nature which makes them inclined to steal and rape. There is also a common sence idea that white people consider black people to be inferior (animals, objects). I suggest that the subject (victim) is naturally more sensitive to hearing the idea spoken or seing it depicted.

The painting depicts the President as a political monster. It also depicts him as a sexual monster. It is not such a wild interpretation to say that the sexual is the cause of the political. Once you recognise that meaning you reference the idea that the President's shortcomings are inevitable because he is black. I am not saying this is a correct interpretation of the painting. But it is not an impossible interpretation.

Many people have made this link and once made, the painting becomes deeply racist even if the complaint is not fully explained. Others, less sensitive to that meaning, are criticised because we attributed a more legitimate meaning, not because we wanted to ignore the meaning, we just did not see it. The result has been that many people, Murray, Zuma's lawyer and children, the city press editor have been hurt in the process and the country has been polarised largely across colour lines.

Some commentators say that it has exposed deep unhealed wounds from Apartheid. I think it is rather that we don't listen to each other properly.

I have read the affidavits in the court proceedings, and the President will lose, not just on the basis of complex legal issues but on the basis that he did not complain that the painting was rascist. He said it depicted him as corrupt, a womaniser and a person who suffered political ineptness. It does, but that is not sufficient reason to ban a painting. That is why the Judge asked and the President's counsel conceded that there was no evidence before the court that the painting was racist.

If the President had complained that the obvious and most likely interpretation of the painting was that the sourse of his personal and political difficulties portrayed in the painting were the fact that he was black, then the court would have to decide the matter on the basis of the decision in the "shoot the boer" case and either find in his favour or distinguish this case on the facts.

Sometimes there is healing in naming, if we agree the name. For my part, I am grateful to Murray and the people (black and white) who have said, stop and listen before this goes to far. If it helps, I don't think that freedom of artistic expression is important because it allows white people to say horrible things about blacks. I do not think the President is an animal or subscribe to any racial superiority or to art that champions those ideas. I don't think that Polygamy is wrong or that you should depict anyone as naked for the purpose of senselesslly insulting them. Murray says the same thing. If you don't believe him, then you probably don't believe me.

Avatar

bugsy

Posted 360 days ago
Very well put, secret voice, spot-on. Just so damn disappointing after the promise of the 1994 elections. I myself, at the time of those first elections could not understand why people would vote anything other than ANC. Why can't our present "leaders" take a leaf out of Madiba's book and LEAD.
Avatar

DaveCoventry

Posted 360 days ago
I feel that the contention that Murray's painting(s) are not racist is slightly undermined by his agreement not to display paintings which the Goodman Gallery thought might offend the Jewish community.

It was easily predictable that this exhibition would provoke a backlash from those who would defend Zulu sensibilities, yet this was ignored while the sensibilities of more important communities were carefully considered.

Gormogon1

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Yes Bret, some of us know this. However, this was an opportunity for the ANC elite to stir-up racial tension and thus bring votes their way, including presenting Zuma as a victim of white hate. The politics of the ANC sickens me.
Avatar

ka-Radebe

Posted 361 days ago
The ANC adopted the freedom charter back in 1955. the same was incorporated into our constitution in 1996. The ANC remains the most racially diverse organisation in the country both in principle and practice.
Avatar

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 361 days ago
ka-Radebe
I'm not convinced that you can still call the ANC racially diverse. Recent happenings (past two years or so) have lost them a lot of the minorities. The ANC has also been very vocal about being a 'black' organisation.
Avatar

BornAgain

Posted 361 days ago
Nonsense, noma. The ANC is a victim in this case. Stop criticising out of habit. It is Murray and his ilk that are recially intolerant and are unable to live in a racially diverse society.
Avatar

BornAgain

Posted 361 days ago
which 'minorities' are you talking about here? can you spell them out?? stop convenient argumentation, because it is really tiring. Voting and party memebrship in south africa is and has always been along racial lines. Even the hypocritical DA had to lure people like lindiwe and mmusi in oredr to attract the so-called black vote.
Avatar

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 360 days ago
BornAgain

White people are not the only minorities in SA. The ANC has been alienating the indian and coloured voters too. There is even a bit of a tribal schism beginning (which I really hope goes no further).

The ANC is not Zuma and Zuma is not the ANC. To say that the ANC is the victim is incorrect. The country is the victim. I have no idea how a painting is so much more embarrassing than trying to explain to children why they have no text books half way through the year or why daddy has a kanga problem.

zindela

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
100% correct, SecretVoice; I would also like to hear what Desmond Tutu has to say in this regard, though.
Avatar

BornAgain

Posted 361 days ago
after Murray, the model, and oupa FW utterances, i am no longer a subscriber in the so-called reconciliation. i think it was stupid idea from the onset. i deal with my nemesis as i would deal with a beast in the jungle...

muk1

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Don't worry too much Brett Murray, the very same people called Helen Zilla a racist. They forget the activist you were just like Helen. Its so easy to play this race card. Think of this; is it not akin to calling someone the K word?
Avatar

BornAgain

Posted 361 days ago
the thing is, you do not become 'a struggle her' by pronouncement. your deeds and actions must attest to that. it is sickening that our oppressors now of all a sudden want to project themselves as our liberators. the fact that zille onece reported favourably about political activists, does not give struggle credentials. the good thing is, black people know who liberated them, and certainly the madam and brett are not in the list.

KafreeMoneykey

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
@SecretVoice. Good morning and well said.

Dear Editor. Can we have a platform where we can post and debate on a "daily topic" . We can submit these daily topics to yourself and you can choose what is relevant for the week. Alernatively, we can vote for the "next day" topics. We are currently limited to your topics as you post them, we just want to be part of "timeslive" and for "timeslive" to be as interactive as possible..

Topics I have in mind:
1. In the past 18 years, have white people done enough to embrace the spirit of reconciliation and transformation? Do they believe it is necessary?
2. Why are black people failing to hold their leaders accountable?
3. What can be done for South Africans to start engaging openly regarding the past?
4. Do South Africans understand the impact of apartheid and the challenges that lie ahead?
5. Is 18 years adequate to have addressed the impact of apartheid?

What is your view on this proposal Dear Editor?

Regards,
Avatar

tman101

Posted 361 days ago
@KafreeMoneykey

Such a debate would be welcomed. I think the Mandela's honeymoon is now over and we as South Africans must deal with real issues. There is so much distrust between black and white that it will destroy this country. We need to engage with real issues, and not the president's genitals.

So I also add my voice to the request that 'timeslive' must really consider providing such a platform. Hopefully we will have people matured enough to engage in such debates without throwing insults at others. I would also add to the list of your topics:

- What has the media done to promote reconciliation in this country. Are the stories they report perpetuate racism or destroying it.


@SecreteVoice, what you are saying is true, and I am glad you are not generalising. However, I believe there are so many stories that reflect otherwise, and its a pity that the media does not see them fit to publish. I was in Cape Town recently for the jazz festival, and was expecting the worst considering the bad publicity the city has been getting about how racist it is. I must say I was pleasantly suprised to see young people of all races mixing and having fun. It was not as bad as the media has made it out to be, again I am sure these issues exist, but there are good stories about this country that the media needs to share with us. Maybe, just maybe if they do that, those who perpetrate racist agendas (both black and white) will not have a space to continue as no one will pay attention to them especially the media.

South Africans its time we started talking.
Avatar

Scribbles

Posted 361 days ago
1) Why is there this onus on "whites" to "reconcile" or "transform"? Furthermore, what do these terms even mean within the context of our current society, is there an expectation of "whites" to donate limbs along with the exuberant taxes, to revile each other, to say "We're horrible, horrible, people", etc? I'm so sick of hearing of reconciliation and transformation without elaboration.

2) I've actually answered this before so this is a bit of copy-pasta! The failure to hold leaders accountable is a recurring theme in MANY countries. And while I will agree that it is somewhat pronounced in South Africa, I also believe that race might only play a small part.

Honestly, South Africa suffers from the same problem of most democracies, where the population votes based on nonsense such as tradition, associations, policy nitpicking, religion (I'm not joking), or party size (they don't want to "waste" votes on smaller parties). Unfortunately, the majority, no matter the skin or literacy levels, simply cast their votes with little to no research. Some even do so out of fear of change, worrying that any attempt to uplift another party will weaken their old one and make way for the opponents to gain leadership. The ANC's chants of racism and the perception of the DA as a "white party" might be affecting the situation a little but I like to think that the majority are simply falling victim to the same patterns as most in democracies.

-- I know this was a suggestion of topics but those two questions stood out and I felt deserved answers, specifically because they sought to paint two groups each with a single brush.
Avatar

Scribbles

Posted 361 days ago
For some reason the entire quote for the second answer didn't post, here's the rest:

As an example, you'll find that a good chunk of the DA's supporters actually have no clue as to the goals of their own party.
Avatar

Thuka-Thuka

Posted 361 days ago
@ KafreeMoneykey - wouldn't that just be yet another forum to sling mud at each other and accuse each other of wrongdoings?
Avatar

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 361 days ago
I think it is a great idea but are we mature enough (as a nation) to tackle this in an open minded and fair way?
Avatar

SecretVoice

Posted 361 days ago
Mommacindy if we don't we are doomed to destruction.It is such a pity that we squandered the opportunity to educate our fellow South Africans during the past eighteen years as it would have leveled the ground for uses full debate around the issue. We need new leaders to build a prosperous country but I am afraid the current lot will continue to sow division to serve their own selfish goals. They are the key driver of racism currently and their conduct over the past few days are clear evidence of this.
Avatar

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 361 days ago
SecretVoice,
The problem is that too many people are hell bent and determined to vent rather than discuss. Just look at this silly painting story. Nobody cares what their own interpretation of the painting is, it is simply taken at face value and nobody else's opinion is even heard - let alone considered.
Avatar

SecretVoice

Posted 361 days ago
Mommacindy very true and therein lies our real dilema.
Avatar

Duzula

Posted 361 days ago
I am with you on that, but we can't just talk with-out solution we need solutions for your problems
Avatar

abrham.nel

Posted 361 days ago
i concur 100% - we are in dire need to debate across culturals barriers

Wiseguy

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Yes, good morning all! Well said secret voice!

@ED......I second KafreeMoneykey's proposal! Let the constructive debate and discussions begin!
Avatar

Scribbles

Posted 361 days ago
It might be nice if TimesLive acquired a forum. Then everyone could make their own topics, although it might be difficult to moderate...

Stirrer

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
The counter-revolutionary judge was right to question where racism fits into the painting saga. Any defence Zuma might have regarding offending his human rights, would be in his personal capacity and not as president.
The ANC are doing a poor job in trying to convince blacks that this is an attack on black people - their pathetic "injury to one is an injury to all" posturing is weak!
And as for their advocate turning on the waterworks in court - how lame! They should have used their seasoned go-to guy, Kemp J Kemp, or one of their other whities, instead of sending in this drama queen. As they say - "moenie kinders stuur nie!".

Thuka-Thuka

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
'Racist' and 'racism' is so over-used it has lost it's meaning in a South African context. If you disagree with someone, you're a racist; if you agree with someone, you're a racist; if you're from a particular population group, you can't be racist (and the others can); if you say something, you're a racist; if you don't say something, you're a racist. And so on and so on. It is all so damn tiring. The word for me has lost all significance that when I see it, I don't even pay attention. When it's used, it doesn't even carry any weight. We've got to that point. And so the issue does not get dealt with. Sad. Very sad.

Theye

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
INEPTOCRACY
by David Hill
Much like inheriting a billion pounds only to die broke or forfeiting a three goal half time lead; ineptocracy is one’s failure to succeed from a position of strength.
A political example of ineptocracy would be South Africa’s ruling party the ANC; who after 18 years of leading one of the most fertile and resource rich countries in the world hasn’t developed any sustainable solutions to generating wealth for its people beyond affirmative action, land redistribution and the nationalization of assets.
After almost two decades of rule, the ANC’s sole solution to endowing its people is still to merely take wealth away from others. Surely this is their failure?
Consider that South Africa is the only country in the world whose affirmative action policy favours a majority who also happens to have complete political control. In the rest of the world affirmative action is designed to favour the politically un-represented minority, not the politically strong majority.
South Africa now appears to have a system of government whereby the ruling party is elected by the non- contributing majority, who in turn are then rewarded with subsidies, goods and services paid for from the earnings of the contributing minority.
The flaw with this system is that nowhere does there exist a plan, nor an incentive, for this impoverished majority to actually start contributing to the economy and hence they continue to demand more from their elected leaders who in turn continue to deflect the wealth generation burden onto the contributing minority.
Clearly this cycle of diminishing returns is not sustainable as eventually the expectation of the non-contributing majority will become too high and the burden on the contributing minority will become too great. In the end something has got to give as no economy can bear 20 million people supporting 50 million people.
To further illustrate just how poorly the ANC has done at generating wealth solutions for its people over the past 18 years, consider Germany and Japan who at the end of World War II were completely decimated by the Allied bombings and were thus economically distraught. Neither had any industry, agriculture nor natural resources to generate wealth from, yet within 20 years both countries had uplifted themselves to being highly employed, economic powerhouses. Clearly both these governments achieved vastly more for their people with significantly less over a similar period of time and without disadvantaging any demographic.
So the fact that after two decades of complete political control the ANC has failed to secure wealth generation systems for its people beyond affirmative action and nationalisation, well is that not the very definition of ineptocracy?
13 February2012
Avatar

ka-Radebe

Posted 361 days ago
@ Theye.
1.The ANC government did not inherit billions of rands but billion of debt from the apartheid government. That is a fact.
2. The ANC, the DA or whatever, CANNOT undo more than 80 years of destruction, disfranchisement, dispossession in just 18 years. No one can
3. Some politicians are corrupt, so are some business people, billions of rands were paid to the competition Commission by corrupt business people who have defrauded the consumers and engaged in cartel practices that hinder economic growth of this country.
4. The non-contributing majority were created by the Apartheid government through Bantu Education Act, Bantu Building Workers Act, Extension of University Education Act, Act 45 of 1959, The Natives Land Act, No 27 of 1913 and many other laws that prevented blacks from accessing quality education necessary for economic growth of the country.

The laws denied people land, health care, education, resources to survive. they were intended to create massive, unskilled, very cheap black labour and it succeeded. No black person who is on welfare is happy to be receiving R1200 than work to get R5000.

Many whites earn more for the same type of work than blacks

The system that is flawed is the one that allows the better educated black man to be managed by a poorly educated white man. It still happens. The flaw is in the system that expects a black man to create jobs when almost all the resources to do so rest with the white man who will not share them. I agree with you that this is not sustainable. Until our economy (in the white hands) can create better paying jobs, the the status quo will remain or worsen. The government does not run companies, the majority of whites do! The government has very good economic development policies but the business (mostly white) is not coming to the party! Business is sitting with over R520 billion they can use to boost the economy and create sustainable jobs.
These grant that the government is giving to the poor (have nots) are preventing the poor from robbing the rich (have) thus reducing crime and violence. It is not sustainable in the long run i agree but what are the alternative?

a_stub_born

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
When a black artist depicts Zuma's genitals encased in a "chastity belt" like, and Tutu's without it as a satire, and mocks even Mandela, we don't hear RACISM!!.....but when a whitey chappie paints the President's "unique" and "only" abilities, then it is racism.
Not very surprised this other painting was never mentioned by the most furious ANC and De-Luxe communists. They only use these arguments whenever it suits to them......

Don't worry. This seems to be a phenomenon not unique or exclusive to SA Although out of SA, these situations seem to be relegated to the most stupid, ignorant, and ill-intentioned sectors of their societies.....

When these advocates recourse to histrionics, shedding groot krokodile tears to avoid further difficult questions claiming to be saddened to injustice, surely turn their sorrow into tears of joy when they pass the bill.......which most likely won't be cancelled by the Zuma numerous clan's own pockets.........Mind you, the said so sensitive advocates probably keep their deep emotions under control if they deal with the victims of rape, murder and other popular varieties in SA today.......

So the ANC with Zuma at the (shower)head deliver their promises after all: loaves of BREAD before elections and CIRCUS (mostly for overseas)......Just like in older times........

Not surprisingly, Mantashe is publicly inciting to violence against the gallery in this case (we know there are always 'foreign to the ANC or COSATU elements' causing convenient destruction of private and public property in their so peaceful and quiet marches), because they knew they were not going to get anywhere with their case, but exposing themselves to the public awareness of the plot created by ANC, "spontaneous defacers" included, to shift the attention from the abundant corruption and putrefaction from inside of the ruling party.....

Theye

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
This article above is very much in the same vein as what Mbeki said last night at he's lecture
Avatar

Scribbles

Posted 361 days ago
It's unfortunate that article isn't open for discussion. Talk of the painting is growing beyond dull...

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
I don't find the painting 'disgusting' or 'racist' or any of the other wild terms being bandied about. I also don't think that it is half as effective as some of the other pieces in Murray's collection. I do, however, feel that censorship is a very slippery slope and one that we older South Africans are only too familiar with.

Who was it that said that they disagree with with your stance but they will fight to the death to defend your right to say it?
Avatar

Scribbles

Posted 361 days ago
New name?
Avatar

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 361 days ago
Yea. Lost my password and its easier to just re-register.
Avatar

BornAgain

Posted 361 days ago
agree. but also defend my right to respond after saying your piece. it is only fair, i think.

a_stub_born

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
HA HA HA HA.........."An in-jury to one is an in-jury to all"..........That is why Zuma-ANC appoints 'transformed' (from justice and law holders into obedient puppets) judges with the finger.......Ain't this a classical third world mini-diktatorship or what !!!!.........

ChrisJesus

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Brett Murray, your art could not hurt, humiliate or insult anyone even if you wanted it to. Fools can only insult themselves with their unconscious thoughts about what is, reality. It has been found that the average mental age of society is below 13 years old, these types of mountains out of molehills are proof of this.
Avatar

Niklos

Posted 361 days ago
Nothwithstanding Brett Murray's resume as anti-apartheid campaigner, let him explain to all of us why he complied with the gallery on other artwork, which in his mind was no offensive either, but as directed by the Gallery proved to be insulting to Jews and Muslims? What was his motive for for proving soluble then? Does the Gallery direct what he paints and if so what was the reason for their objection to the art that the current objection is found in wanton. So ChrisJesus, Murray's art has been found to hurt, humiliate and insult and he should not pretend it does not or it can't when he previously kow-towed and proved open for such advice. Everyone has all of a sudden become a art connoiseur and knows exactly what Murray intended with this vulgarised depiction of Zuma. This is no different to what Baron Cuvier did when he dissected Saartjie Baartman our mother, Cuvier was in typical sickness of mind possessed in monstrosity of obsession with her womanhood, we would be fooled to assume that such less stated but held view on the African man's endowment is not the concern of those who consider themselves white. Fools do believe they are superior and have an inalienable right to dictate what is art because it meets their criteria. Fools are those who is hell bent on spitting every time in the face of those who extended them forgiveness, fools are those who want us to forget about an apartheid, because we now in charge, fools want us to assume yesterday is history, for they all off a sudden know exactly how a democracy work and should work, when they oppressed others whom they considered not just fools but subhuman in monkey definition.

Mr.V.mqokozo

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
As young black South African I have to say I was indeed concerned when the picture the spear was made public. I immediately saw disrespect and ridiculing of our president Jacob Zuma however after reading the painter`s reasons for the painting I can honestly say he has a point. As the painting shows that on one hand we see the president as the president a respectable and an honorable figure of society but we also see him as a very sexually active individual because the rape scandal, his many wives and thes number of his kids with his wifes and side wheels.e

Therefore I would like to say the painting is justifiable and it is definitely not racist.
Some individuals who have found it to be beneficial to them have gone out their way telling people that black view this painting as racist well I dont.

Futurefirst

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Secret voice raised very interesting points! black people respect their elders, no matter how hard you disagree with a person you never go as low as that. He is a father to his children, to the nation and a husband to many. We cannot judge him by how many wives he has as he is entitled to as many wives as he wants. To some this painting portrayed a person who advertising his private parts 'for sale' and who uses them as he sees fit hence the no. of wives and with this interpretation the artist appears to lack insight towards our culture. It will appear as if the artist is judging the president based on practising his culture. Also the man has children and grand children - how does one explain such to them? We have immense respect for our elders regardless of how wrong they may have done, it will not change the way we feel about them. Hence you get alot of us helping at home even when the parents are well off, majority do not send them to homes they are cared for by us, we have never seen them naked, growing up you never entered their bedroom unless you were asked to get something, they are our rocks!

fact ; a person's dignity was dragged down the mud!
he may not be the most perfect person but dont judge him for being a cultural man who has not been converted by the western ways of doing things, let him make his choices as a citizen of the country

lets learn more about ones culture and be tolerant torwards each other's differences
Avatar

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 361 days ago
Maybe that is why our gorgeous continent is in the mess that it is in. Not questioning authority figures and forgiving them over and over and over again.

KafreeMoneykey

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
@Theye...the lecture was excellent.

@Scribbles : "1) Why is there this onus on "whites" to "reconcile" or "transform"? ...The perception is that whites have not done enough. I do not know what "enough" is, but the perception is out there so I thought it will make an interesting debate.

@tman101, I hope ED will consider the proposal. We need to start talking, I know as South Africans we can do it. Personally, I am in a political abyss, I am not sure if my vote is worth any party. That cannot be good.
Avatar

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 361 days ago
The word 'race' had no colour connotation, in its original form. It had a religious meaning. It was later in history where it adopted a social and cultural meaning. Then politics took it over, to use it for dividing people for their political- and economic- power.

The sooner people get out of this intellectual prison of skin colour, the sooner they will realise how they have been duped for generations and generations.

SuiGeneris

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar

I notice that the bias moderator/s are at work again !

WE CANNOT POST ARTICLES, COLUMNS OR BLOGS FROM ANOTHER WEBSITE DIRECTLY ONTO OURS, HENCE THE COMMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO POST A LINK. - ED

Ozgood

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
In the first place I would never vote for the ANC, Zuma nor any one of his gang.

This does not mean that I approve of the vulgar, disgusting and puerile/schoolboy art of Murray. Surely he must have realised that this distasteful painting would provoke an outcry with possible violent consequences. The response it provoked was encouraged by the ANC and its cohorts

People should read the article by Moletsi Mbeki elsewhere and be very worried. This man has a lot on insight and his comments are very incisive. We are starting to enter very dangerous and uncharted waters.

Forget about Mantashe's utterances that SA does not need the West since it has BRIC. We live in a global interconnected village,
Avatar

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 361 days ago
In BRIC, China has found a vehicle to control the most powerful developing countries. Its expansionist ambitions precedes even that of communist dictatorship. Fortunately, the BRIC countries are sophisticated enough to resist re-colonisation. But as for the SA, we too are uneducated, illiterate, racially-, and ethnically-divided, and far behind in the information phase, even behind Africa itself. We are sitting ducks for Chinese neo-colonisation. In fact, we are its colony, as colonisation is advanced from its archaic form. By flooding our industries with cash, it has seized control of our present and future existence, and we have corrupt and irresponsible politicians to thank for that. We will pass on a huge and increasing debt to our next generation. We are a colony.
Avatar

a_stub_born

Posted 361 days ago
.....Mantashe on the West and BRIC shows himself as another DEMAGOGUE, akin to Julius. As much as Mantashe rants and kicks, SA IS OWNED by the West and China, like the rest of Africa and other third world country....To deny it is to show arrogant stupidity!....

....The ANC has managed to DESTROY the abilities of SA to become independent or at least to control the obscene domination of huge financial powers on lesser countries..........

BobbyBob

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Which is the most hurtfull ? The disrespect shown an older man and leader, or, the satirical representation of what he continuously exposes us to .

In his election campaign he frightened rural voters by saying that if they did not vote ANC, their ancestors would turn their backs on them. A cynical abuse of people"s strong belief in traditional values. Maybe the traditional values are now turned against him, and no-one likes it. It's too uncomfortable.

newshound

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Isn't it SO ironic that exactly TWO of the three qualities that Murray wanted to portray about Zuma (power @ patriarchy) have in fact played themselves out in the short period since the painting went on display:
consider how Zuma's (misguided) urgent court application to have the painting BANNED, proves just how Zuma tries to strip South Africans of their constitutionally protected legal right to view the painting if they so wished. He is able to approach the court simply because somehow, he has the money with wich to do it. This in ITSELF demonstrates his power to use a court to satisafy PERSONAL needs and whims above most of his people's ability to do the same.

Zuma's power and patriarchy is further CONFIRMED in the way that he obtains backing from his party to supporters to try to effect a boycott of a major newspaper in the country - for no other reason than a personal vendetta against the paper.

Murray is so right: Zuma is about personal power and patriarcy. How very accurately The Spear depicts the president!

FakeboySA

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Brett – the fact that you fought in the struggle against Apartheid DOES Not mean that you may not be a Racist. As an educated person, I expect you to easily grasp this. People went into the struggle for various reasons – some fighting racism. Some fighting dictatorship and a Police State, some fighting for Media freedom, some wanting economic empowerment. I don’t know what was your main motivator for fighting against Apatheid. But it was certainly not anything to do with racial repression or ideologies. If so, you would not have used one of the symbols of racial repression of black people to raise whatever gripe you have with Government Or JZ. Don’t you know that black man were forced to strip naked and be examined by White man as part of general racial repression ?? Like I have said – show us that you are not a victim of this old age racial mindest by coming out and admitting that you have used a very wrong symbol to do your protest. Your argument almost sounds like that one of an ‘excellent father’ who however has committed a hideous crime such as raping a neighbour’s daughter – the fact that generally the person is a good father and a good human being, a great community player, never even killed a fly before - does not change the crime at hand. So your crime at hand here does not change just because you fought against Apartheid
Avatar

a_stub_born

Posted 361 days ago
..As an educated person, what is your opinion on Andile Mabulu's painting, if you please ???.......
Avatar

Wiseguy

Posted 361 days ago
@Fakeboy......"show us that you are not a victim of this old age racial mindest".......all citizens of this country who were born prior to 1994, are victims of that mindset in one way or another, regardless of race!

Wiseguy

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
I find it very concerning that an organisation like the ANC, with its massive support base and political following, through its most senior leaders, can shout racism whenever they feel they have been afronted, critisized or whenever someone or another grouping doesn't necessarily agree with them ! This is simply WRONG and incredibly destructive to our society ! It polarises our society and indeed perpetuates the concept of us and them....along racial lines ! Where is the nation building in this ? Yet they, the ANC, are the party that has been tasked(mandated) with governing and hopefully building or at least trying to build our nation and improve it! A very very important part of which is deracialising the people and overcoming the racism of the past.....this applies to all the people, not just a minority or a particular segment !

Yes, our President may have felt affronted and even insulted by this piece of art. He then has every right as an individual to challenge his right to dignity in our courts, BUT to then galvanise or try to galvanise the entire ANC(when they are mandated to run the country, one would think a slightly bigger and excuse me Mr Pres. surely a much more important job) and focus the entire countries/worlds eyes on this one relatively tiny issue makes no sense to me ? A current ANC whose most senior leaders then scream racism (when there clearly is NONE....very worrying in itself), with court actions, protest marches, boycotts and indeed hype up and create a furore across the country and in the eyes of the international community.....surely something is very very wrong with this ?? Does this not point to self-serving leaders, who put their interests before those of the country ? Where the dignity of their leader is deemed more worthy of serious action than say responding to the UN findings on the state of this nations children ? Do these current ANC leaders really have this countries and its peoples best interests at heart ? Are they honestly putting the peoples(their members and supporters) needs FIRST ??

Surely, the leaders of such an esteemed organisation should know better....given our history of racial segregation, racial abuse ? When the "freedom charter", the constitution of the ANC, and indeed that of RSA call for non-racialism!

I suggest a new policy at Manguang....."Where all members of the ANC and its supporters are asked to desist and refrain from labelling/calling anyone or indeed any organisation racist, unless it is proven in an established court of law".

But the current policy of shouting racism whenever someone or some organisation is critical or in disagreement with the ANC..........is not doing the ANC or this country any good and is just perpetuating the racism of the Apartheid regime, which by far the majority of people of this good land took a firm stand against !

In fact,it raises concerns of a hidden agenda !
Avatar

SecretVoice

Posted 361 days ago
To further prove your point Chris Nissan recently turned the fracking in the Karoo, into a racial issue. He was unable to debate the issue on merit so he made it a racial issue. It really seems it is ANC policy to drive racism as an excuse at every obstacle they encounter.

POST94

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
This affidavit is utter rubbish, and Brett knows it. His painting is motivated by his newfound racist attitude towards the blacks (how dare they include polygamy in the constitution!!) and it's a personal attack on the person of JZ and other traditionalists.

As far as we ALL know, Zuma last engaged on an extra-marital affair (Khoza) in 2009, well before he became President of this country. Thereafter, all he has done is to formalise his existing relationships by marrying his old-time sweethearts. And that is protected by our constitution.

At least Zapiro has been consistent ever since the rape trial. But Brett? He really cannot explain waiting 3 years to challenge Zuma on his sexual behaviour. He's been clean for 3 years! So it's obvious he's attacking polygamy as a practise.
Avatar

datraveller

Posted 361 days ago
You really need to dust that chip off your shoulder - I can tell you now that there are as many black South Africans as white South Africans that are for/against polygamy (look up the stats). This is not about polygamy this is about an incompetent president who seems to put his penis before the country - please don't insult black people by implying that promiscuity is so called black culture.
Avatar

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 361 days ago
According to Drum, Missie Khoza has another bun in the oven. Guess who the suspected baker is.
Avatar

POST94

Posted 361 days ago
@datraveller

Please explain how Zuma put his penis before the country. By marrying more than 1 wife? So as far as you're concerned a polygamist marry to serve the need of his penis? Come to think of it, do you mary to serve your penis? Geez!!!
Avatar

Hi--Jack

Posted 361 days ago
@Post94

Missing the point again, mmmm? This is about JZ being an irresponsible and promiscuous old man.

How can you use the constitution to morally defend someone who at the age of 70 (past retirement age), still marrying "sweethearts" and fathering children - in and out of wedlock, mind you ?

Who will raise and care for those kids and those wives?

It's nothing but vulgar greed and lust. The artist accurately reflected that. In just the same vein.

datraveller

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
It is high time people start taking people to court for calling them racist - it is clearly defamation of character. The court can then decide if one is racist, if they are then they have something to work on and they pay the legal fees - it not the accuser can learn a lesson, brush off that chip and learn not to reach for the race card every time they are criticised.

Mangqeshane

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Fine, you may not be a racist, but you are raciallly intolerant on what may offend Africans (in tha majority). It is a known fact that we take it personally if you say something or do something bad to our elders. for crying out loud Nxamalala is 70 yrs.

Next time do this for Bret Murray, go to a Balck Taxi rank and swear at someone by mentioning his parent's genatalia and see the TREATMENT you will get. I will advise you to bring a friend who will take you to hospital
Avatar

datraveller

Posted 361 days ago
Dude drop the race card fast it's eatingy ou up from the inside! Go to ANY South aFrican black or white and insult them, their father, their granny, their friend and you best take someone with who can take them to hospital.

kksonuk

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
@secretvoice

You think too much... but I understand because you are too concern...
The people in charge have their own ideas. I am black and I do not see race in that picture... but I see it wouldn't be allowed to be displayed anywhere in the black community... sometimes it is difficult for a black parent to buy a doll (for a kid) that show exact private parts (of that doll), we would buy those that are plain below... My thinking is that we failed to put the matter clear in good faith... and instead people put race in the whole thing... I think the unfortunate breakdown into teas yesterday was painfull... anyone could have given a reason to it and one of them which was never said is that the man ran out of ideas and did not know how to jump out of his skin or swallow his head, mainly because the base of the argument does not really go far and was somewhat exposed... hence reminded him that a white-man is now treating me the same way they did back in the 80s... obviously that was sad and painful to remember as it always is to all of who experienced it though at different levels and incomparable.

Do not forget that we are heading to elections soon and MARK my words... Please MARK MY WORDS.. The campaign when defending bad governess and mismanagement will be APARTHEID... Campaign (mainly in Townships) and RURAL Areas where majority of votes are won is about apartheid and how white people will bring back apartheid... and that works (at least for now)... Hence I say do not think too much about this whole thing... in few weeks time, something else will come up. Who thought about this? We all thought JUJU is off and we will breathe a bit... LoL! A lot is still coming and nobody knows what because tomorrow it could be you sparking national debate...
Avatar

datraveller

Posted 361 days ago
LIKE

DanielleHart

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Yes we can judge Zuma for bowing to (hiding behind) tradition as president and having as many wives as he likes. While millions huddle together in wretched conditions, millions are being spent ferrying around each of these (5 is it?) wives. Millions are spent, as top of the range cars sit around in each province, on the off chance that one of these wives will pitch. If he really cared about the people he'd think twice before eyeing that reed bed!

ShameFul_Sa

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Very ignorant POST94 ... If the president was gay then the artist would merely potray the president as such. In this case the Zuma that we all loved and protested to be our president has in many was run this country using his penis to make decisions. Who knows how many tenders have been awarded based to him getting sexual favours. Im black and in support of this painting since due to his massive sexual appitite my tax will now be supporting another wife of his. Further should this painting be banned then I will personally print 10 000 units and distribute every where. Why should the country be held to a stand still because of this man's penis. Please visit the goodman's gallery website and see all the works of this exhibition... its merely potrayal of whats been going on. As we speak Auro miners are struggling to feed their famalies yet when asked to comment on the matter... your president refuses. When asked what legacy does he want to leave behind....."no answer". Instead everyone will run to the polls to vote for an idiotic, horny, Gupta puppet president into second term!!!

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
I've just been asked a rather sad question.
Why is it that when we, as South Africans, hear the phrase "I'm no racist" we always expect it to be followed by the word "BUT" ?
Avatar

Wiseguy

Posted 361 days ago
Beacuse Momma, we citizens are ALL victims of Apartehid mentality, especially those of us born before 1994 and we need to get over it, we need to mature and grow into a non-racial society......but it will take time and maybe even a few generations to bury it finally.

We require exceedlingly good leadership(e.g. Mandela) at all levels of our society and in our daily lives to show us race need play no significant part in our daily lives, society or political landscape. But the current ANC leadership and their race card are just not helping...unfortunately!
Avatar

SecretVoice

Posted 361 days ago
Momma I don't think it is true. I think nobody should ever have to answer a question that results in an answer"I am not a racist" It should be clear from your behaviour and general conduct. Why on earth will anybody ask such a question?
Avatar

RSA.MommaCyndi

Posted 361 days ago
SecretVoice,
I think maybe Wiseguy has given the answer.
How many times do we hear things like 'I'm no racist BUT these black / white / indian / etc ....."? That word 'but' then negates the first part of the sentence whilst showing the true thoughts in the second part.

jeedo

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
@ Baas Frik/SecretVoice

Until you see a picture of your father's aartapels/balas hanging like a punching bag, you will never understand.

swona1

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
i think this guy is not racist, he's just creative and naughty, perhaps gay, he fencies JZ!
Avatar

Mangqeshane

Posted 361 days ago
Thula Bopela says

"If on an ordinary day they met a man walking in the street with his genitals hanging outside his pants, would they see that as ‘nothing wrong?’ What would our law-enforcement agents do with such a man? He would be arrested and charged (unless it was proven that he is mad) with indecent exposure. Why indecent exposure? Because even our law prohibits open display of one’s private parts in public. One is allowed to walk about in the privacy of his bedroom without a stitch of clothing on him; it is private. Not once he leaves his house and joins the public. So why is there ‘nothing wrong’ with portraying President Zuma (who has never been certified as mad) in this fashion in public?"

I agree with his sentiments. Truth be told non Black people have this tendency of wanting to TELL US how we must feel about anything. They find it difficult when we express ourself in any particular manner which is contrary to their percieved thinking

a_stub_born

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
FakeBoy, jeedo, swona1:

care to comment on Ayanda Mabulu's own painting????.......
Avatar

Mangqeshane

Posted 361 days ago
Ayanda is is as guilty and WRONG as Bretts, just because he is Balck does not make his cartoons less insulting, degrading, stupid. Yena he suffers from SELF HATE and hates government (not just RSA government) , but government in GENERAL. Anything that resembles authority.

UYAYINYANYA
Avatar

Niklos

Posted 361 days ago
Ayanda, is just as much a victim of those who claim to know what art is. His depiction of a naked Tutu and Zuma when he does not do so of others Botha etc in the same called art attests to the mind of of an indoctrinated slave. It is amazing that Murray proved soluble to adhere to the request of the Gallery on other artwork, which would have insulted Jews and Muslims, why did he kow-tow at that time, and not proved the man he purports to be. So he knows that art can hurt, denigrate and insult if he was able to understand and accept the objection of the gallery before. I do not buy this 'no harm intended' hogwash, he knew exactly waht he was getting at.
Ayanda is not the barometer of our interpretation of what constitutes art nor is the mind of liberal who innately holds onto an inalienable supremacy.

Sikolemamba

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
1.
Who are we to judge extra marital activities of anyone? Are we perfect? Brett Murray, are you perfect? Are you without sin? Is this the stone you want to continue to cast?
2.
Zuma may have been sent to various courts, his government may have disappointed millions of the people who voted it into power, but I really do not think that he deserves to be portrayed in that fashion.
3.
What Brett Murray is in effect saying is that as much as some whites may have abhorred apartheid, they still did not make any effort to understand and respect African culture. And yet they live in Africa, but yes have no regard of fundamental African values, Humility and Respect. They still do not know what UBUNTU really means. They are still very arrogant and they will not listen to anyone but themselves.
4.
UBUNTU does not exist in anyone who continues to support the idea of the Spear.
5.
I find it quite disturbing that the Goodman Gallery saw it fit to go ahead with the display of the spear and yet they took steps not to exhibit any works which could offend Muslims and Jews. Are they in fact not the Badman gallery?
6.
This is in effect saying that what Africans have to say about what they find disrespectful is
irrelevant to the Goodman Gallery, Brett Murray and to the greater white South Africa. I will not waste my time talking about the Africans like the Goodman gallery’s security guard whose minds have found self oppression a stimulating exercise. What is disappointing with them is that as much some of them could be well educated, they still have not freed their minds from the effects of 400 years of subjugation. Clearly their masters did not teach them any such courses at University and they are not smart enough to learn anything significant on their own.

7. How I wish Biko was alive.
Avatar

Wiseguy

Posted 361 days ago
@Sikolemamba.....the point you make that Brett Murray may not understand african culture or its value system is valid......BUT that does NOT make him a racist....it makes him ignorant !

But he also has and is entitled to a culture and value system....one that says an elected leader is appointed by the people to serve the people ! He may be stating through his art work that our sitting president is at odds with his cultural and value system ?

So maybe their is a lot of ignorance on both sides of this debate/disagreement, but there is NO racism, of that I am sure!

There is a huge difference between racism and ignorance......and for the most senior leaders of the ANC to say he is racist is very simply - incorrect and wrong!


Avatar

AlfonsoX

Posted 361 days ago
Sikolemamba - if you watch the whole clip of the arrest you will see that the white guy (he was an advertising executive) got involved. He spooked when he got paint on his hands and that spooked the security guard who was calm and professional up until then. Not saying that what he did was O.K but if the vandal (or art pirate) had been young and white and the same thing had happened, I expect that the security guard would have done the same thing. If you take race out of the question, then I think its a bit unfair to criticize the security guard for over-reacting in the heat of the moment. The white advertising executive was just as clueless but much less effective.

jeedo

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Remember, it is about what you find offensive. Zuma and his cronies did not see anything offensive about that painting BUT they find this one offensive. Two wrongs dont make a right. It is also hypocritical to fail to answer for the point at issue and start making reference to some obscene past. This is where the race card come in (Ayanda=Black=Not wrong vs Brett=White=WRONG). Bottom line Zuma finds it as an attack to his dignity. You can go and drink now.

jeedo

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
What does hanging aartapels have to do with African culture? Common!

jeedo

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Walking around with aartapels hanging started in the garden of Eden.

manga2

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
We all know artists and creative writers are consciously MAD people. They know it too. I am sure Brett gave us a toned-down version, his first draft must surely be quite scary.

Theye

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
A nation behaves in the way they are led and are judged as a whole. When Hitler ruled, the world hated germans. When the russian communist leaders ruled we hated Russians. Other examples exsist. There are countries in Africa that are starting to do very well on there own with new progressive leaders emerging and their people are being respected in Africa. But what I find is that the racism is not personal in South Africa, it is based on what the leaders do. I work with 83 black call centre staff everyday and we get on perfectly fine but as soon as there is controvercial decisions by our leaders or actions that are plain bad I look at my black employees as if it is their fault, They must be ignorant of how they are being manipulated, they voted for these idiots. I class them immediatly to the leaders as if they are collectively responsible. This feeling in me clears very quickly and I understand very quickly that I cannot judge an individuals action and blame a race collectivelly. Am I for that moment being racist? I think so and am embarressed about it. But I believe this is the exact feeling a black man has when Zille says something stupid or a white painter paints a picture of a blackman.They also immeddiatly put all white people into the same kraal as the white person they percieve to have done the blackman wrong. What I believe is that the ANC knows this VERY well and have nursed this feeling for there own gain. The apartheid goverment was the same. They instilled fear in us that another group was the enemy and hated us. we as individuals have to judge each other by our individual thoughts and actions not by the actions. So by all means judge Brett but do not call all whites racist if you judge him and believe that he is racist. we are all guilty of this thinking, black and white. The leaders of this country are useing this to put black up against white to cover up what has been 18 years of disaster

OBigOneKenobi

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
The definition of "racist" in South Africa seems to have become "any person who in anyway criticizes a person of a different race to their own". Continuing to use the word as such will certainly cause resentment, and as such, breed racism. So it's a self fulfilling prophecy - continue to unfairly label people as racist, and they will start to become so.

I share the artists views. So in effect, by calling him a racist, I feel as if you are calling me a racist. That's why so many people have taken offence, I think.

ka-Radebe

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
In my past, I went o a white church and dated a white chick. does that mean I am not racist? maybe, maybe not!

Racist or not, Like Zuma or not, Like the ANC or not, good past or not, the painting is offensive to me because I find it disrespectful.

Zuma has flaws, I have flaw, the blacks have flaws, the whites have flaws, business people have flaws, do we have to insult one another and call one another names convey our message? I think NOT!

Mangqeshane

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
"Tell me one name in any African language that we blacks use to insult whites. There isn’t, in any black language. We call them abelungu, which means white people only, nothing more. Maybe that is why they do these things to us; we do not retaliate.

Somebody has suggested that a black artist should paint a portrait of Helen Zille or De Klerk with their private parts exposed and see if these super-sophisticated people will call it art. But I know no black person would ever consider doing such a thing.

To us what they have done with that Brett Murray portrait is pornography, not art. We are taking them to court; fine. What do we do if the court says it is freedom of expression, as it is most likely to do?

Kodwa-ke sizothini bakwethu ngoba nezingane zethu zicula ngoZuma zimbiza ngoShawa? What can we say because even our own young people sing songs about our President calling him ‘Shower’. Whites see that we are not self-respecting people; we insult our own. Maybe that is why Thula Bopela thinks we deserve the treatment we are getting".
Avatar

Theye

Posted 361 days ago
Somebody has suggested that a black artist should paint a portrait of Helen Zille or De Klerk with their private parts exposed and see if these super-sophisticated people will call it art.

you certainly are not very original are you.?? There is a connection between Zuma's nudity and how he run's his personal life which he continuosly shoves in his peoples face. If he kept his personal life and what he does in bed to himself we would not know of he's sexual exploits, but he keeps on shoving it into the public eye. Is this African tradition to make everyone aware of who you bed , regardless if it's your mistress, or best friends daughter. I didn't know that i thought black people rejected this time of blatant open sexuality
Avatar

Scribbles

Posted 361 days ago
Mangqeshane said, "Somebody has suggested that a black artist should paint a portrait of Helen Zille or De Klerk with their private parts exposed and see if these super-sophisticated people will call it art. But I know no black person would ever consider doing such a thing."

The ANCYL are currently supporting a naked picture of Helen which one of their members created. Helen laughed the picture off.

SAatheart

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
No one can say for sure if the painter is racist or not , however what I know for sure is that Mr Zuma's age and public standing ( according to African Values and Norms ) played a huge role in the response from black South Africans , our people have the atmost respect for elders and people in high positions , which at times is the reason for the lack of proper judgement on our part. I'm almost certain that even some of his biggest foes couldn't have agreed with the Spear in it's current form.
Avatar

Theye

Posted 361 days ago
our people have the utmost respect for elders and people in high positions

Thats the difference I think, have you noticed how all the African Dictators who have thrown their people onto the scrap heaps are all over 60 mugabe 90 something and even though he is the most distasteful man in the world today who has ruined his people he is still worshipped by the downtrodden. i reserve my respect for those that have earned my respect. we certainly are two different thinking people are we not. are you saying that even if a blackman is a leader and old regardless of his actions you still respect him??? you are forced to because of custom???
Avatar

Scribbles

Posted 361 days ago
You forget that Malema and others have insulted elders in high positions, of various colours, and received far more praise than condemnation. The only reason we finally saw any disciplining was when he went up against the wrong person, Zuma.
Avatar

Scribbles

Posted 361 days ago
My comment was towards SAatheart, not Theye.

a_stub_born

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
"""".... This is where the race card come in (Ayanda=Black=Not wrong vs Brett=White=WRONG). Bottom line Zuma finds it as an attack to his dignity."""""

........Thanks for the opinion. Then why all the circus ?????........... Zuma could not care less whether it was his penis or his ears depicted, or his showerhead....This is a whole ploy mounted by the ANC to shift the public attention from the critical situation of the ANC, plagued by corrupt cadres, minstrels. fraud, etc. It seems there is not a single day when we read or hear about fraud, misuse and abuse of public funds, tenders and contracts for which we all must pay, etc.

Zuma himself has publicly acknowledged he has no clue on how to be a President and a Leader. He sees nothing wrong with the manure we are all in. Nothing wrong with cadres rewarded for committing delict, criminals or sinister characters appointed in exchange of loyalty. In fact, he sees nothing.......but "he knows what he is doing"......ha ha ha ha ha.......

HennieSmit

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
If you do not want to be ridiculed, don´t be ridiculous !

puleng.mosholi

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
This is my take on the issue: I think it was convinient and easy for the ANC to accuse Brett Murray as racist and here's why I think that_http://counterrevolutinaryhouse.blogspot.com/2012/05/if-it-insert-verb-like-racist-it-must.html

Bellend

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
He should have called his painting "The Urinator" as a mark of respect to all the voters who put Zuma and the ANC into power.Collectively they have been pissing all over the Country's citizens for the last 18 years.

Dilectic

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
No racist would pronounce themsleves as 'racist', in the same way that a dictator will say "i am a dictator'.

The tone of the painting contradicts Murray's claim. The thing is people opposed apartheid for a variety of reasons, but that does not mean that all those who oppose it were anti-white supremacy.

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
Tjo! There seems to be much that hangs on Zuma's penis than people are willing to admit. It is said that people never say what they mean directly. Animals communicate coherently than man, although the latter is gifted with every means of communicating- facial expression, various use of language (idioms, phrases, etc,.) It is no wonder that only human beings are capable, and more than willing to wipe their own out of this planet.

The dictators are so hard of hearing the simplest of language, and always go down still in disbelief that people do not want them. They get into power through tricks and subterfuge, and when in power use propaganda, ad nauseum, until they believe it to be true. Then they get surprised when people have had enough, and use violence to overthrow them.

Dilectic

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
I read Murray's representations. He made some wild claims about corruption, power that he cannot substantiate.
Steve Biko wrote about whyte liberals who were opposed to apartheid, but fundamentally belive in whytte supremacy. So that Murray was anti-apartheid (which i doubt) does not mean 'hy is nie a ras nie'. All evidence point to the contrary. Guilty as charged. But who cares, we have views about him as well...
Avatar

VincentFredericks

Posted 359 days ago
hopefully you have created another race by writing, whytte(sic), because you are best to "art to the artist".....
even if I'm a amateur artist....it takes a lot of thinking and planning, and there's a theme, starngely enough for those not associated with art, to the artist
He or she, spends more time planning, and mentally constructing this theme, before any work goes into that....

all of a sudden, overnight, the whole of south africa have become expert art critics...

what did you say, when "Jesus", was depicting gay, when "Jesus", was ridiculed, portrayed as "Black Jesus", satirically mocked....

where were all those critics /christians...or is it another matter, another dimension of the same thing, or a different thing..

do we have different strokes for different folks...

I knew from the onset how this artist feels, because I share his sentiments...I'm also from his time....look at the value of his words....sometimes when somebody speaks hard, and cruel...it's not the temperament, it's not the loudness of the voice, but it's the lesson, it's the value of the words, it's what you should take out of it, and weigh it up to seek the value, is their truth in it, if I analyze it.....

we seem to be too myopic in it what we want to see....look for the bigger picture....

Mangqeshane

Posted 361 days ago
Avatar
There is 1 word to describe Brett's potrait "UBUNGQUZA". Nothing more nothing less. He may not be a rascist, but he is DEFINATELY racial intolerant of any African
Avatar

POST94

Posted 361 days ago
UBUNGQUZA!!! LOL
Avatar

BornAgain

Posted 361 days ago
When Murray says "I am not a racist", he does not mean it literarlly. He is simply making a 'satirical' statement. The man is an artist remember?
Avatar

Hi--Jack

Posted 361 days ago
@BornAgain

You do not make satirical statements in a court of law.
Avatar

Hi--Jack

Posted 361 days ago
@Mangqeshane

and you are is DEFINATELY out of your mind.

"... He may not be a rascist, but he is DEFINATELY racial intolerant of any African..."

How on God's earth can you come up with such logic ? Wake up man. Political leaders are being ridiculed all over the world. Watch the images of the Bill and Monica saga. Not all are flattering. Same goes for Sarcozy and even more so for Berlusconi.

JZ just happen to exceed all limits of rational and moral behavior. Ask any African woman if it's acceptable to father children out of wedlock. Even if you have 4 current wives allready. Then you explain to me with your twisted logic, how do YOU justify a 70 year old man making more babies and marrying woman he cannot possibly satisfy, cloth and feed. Nevermind even the kids...


Avatar

m1si2zi3nzo4

Posted 360 days ago
It is such a pain to hammer in a sense of logic to a brain that has been reduced to categories through centuries of racial politicking. It can be argued that the South African reasoning is reduced to two racial thinking, and perhaps a third category - that is hopelessly and constantly learning to extricate itself from this racial categorisation. Trying to be a citizen in a country where race is paramount, is impossible, because to race, at least in South Africa, attaches benefits, and largesse. Even any plea for 'tolerance' means deference to domination by another skin colour. Nation-building proposals are loaded. The meaning is simple: Transform to dominance by the few elite, whose claim to power is through a majority of a minority vote. Then the elite of this minority (majority of political parties - usually ethnic-based) impose a president on the entire population, who then impose the 'culture' of the tribe which propelled him to power. It takes no effort nor sweat to do this, because the stake is the public money. The 'winner' who takes all, becomes an individual, imposed on the whole population by a few powerful elite, who dominate (and suppress - and even kill - any opposition) the proceedings within a majority of the minorities.

Surely, the majority must have mechanisms of removing such a president, because he costs them not only their lives, but their next generations. The defective argument is that such a president must be respected by everybody, including those who would never even dream of putting him in control of their money. The falseness and defect of such argument can only be supported by exaggeration and flattery, that is based on non-existent identities like race, or ethnicity. It can be argued that the constitution - the only instrument that would normally carry the will of every citizen - never envisaged a situation like we have.