The infamous Jacob Zuma painting

[tec0]

And the rest of the minority in general are left to deal with the repercussions… Basically he "the artist" moved the wheel back by about 10 years.

The media turned it into a fiasco and there we go.

About two years ago we all can still remember the fiasco interview on e-new$. Can that be considered impartial? And there last report on this fiasco, can it be deemed impartial?

edit:

Upon reading my own post I figured that it looks like I am blaming the artist. This was not my intention. I was hoping to point out that the news "reporters" took it to the next step and is "making the news".

Thus I continue to question if the reporter acted impartial or not?

[IMHO]

WHY? WHY? WHY?

I don't get it?

There is elements in this country that is desperately trying to get a common enemy for the black man, so they can unite and stop the in-fighting which is bound to destroy themselves (the black man). The white man is the ideal common enemy. The 'elements' did not plan this. The artist did it for his own selfish reasons, but played right into the hands of the 'elements', who saw the opportunity and jumped on it. It will not achieve what they actually desire, which is for blacks to en-masse go on a rampage against white, but it goes a long way in strengthening the hatred and set the right atmosphere.

Their previous attempt also failed. I am referring to the murder of ET. It was pointed out by independent investigators that he was taken out by a hit squad from GP. These accused that was found guilty and acquitted yesterday was just the scape goats. The idea and hope was that ET's followers would take up arms and revenge, giving them (the 'elements') the ideal opportunity to bring their wish to fulfillment. With God's Grace, ET's followers did not step into the trap and their whole plan came to naught.

So, it is not so difficult to understand why it is made a race thing and why every opportunity to do so will be grabbed. We as whites should just stay calm, understand what is happening and let them sort themselves out. You can also expect more false flag operations, pursuing this agenda. Heaven forbid, but what would happen if a white man (False Flag) take out JZ, at the same time that Mandela lays his head down?

[wynn]

The definition of art is that the depiction must cause emotion, I think this piece of art has succeeded beyond the artists expectations.

From the Daily Maverick
"Zuma can by all means test, in court, whether Murray’s aesthetics and cultural norms should bow to his. For Zuma to win, though, would require demonstrating that his dignity has actually been impaired and not just that his feelings were hurt. And I don’t know about you, but I already had the impression that Zuma was a rather sexual creature. Not because of some identity politics claptrap, but simply because he has “four wives, two exes and 22 children by 10 different women”, as the Economist succinctly put it."

read the rest of the article http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/op...-painted-black

[Dave A]

Something that one should understand about the black mans culture. In the 90's, black men who did not supported the ANC was caught and tied up naked to a lamp post in the street, for everyone to see his genitals. That is because it is the worst humiliation a black man can suffer, in that his children see his private parts. If one understand this, one can understand the reaction and humiliation of JZ. This was a big blunder and all whites will be even more hated for it.

Many thanks indeed IMHO for this insight, I was not aware of this. I think learning about each others cultures and taboos is an ongoing exercise!

Also an interesting insight as to where culture and cultural defense reactions come from (something that has been much on my mind of late, but on a totally different subject).

[Citizen X]

“How good and how pleasant it would be, before God and before men to see the unification of all people,.”
Unpacking a contentious issue: In the spirit of healthy public disclose, I deem it necessary to unpack this matter. We just talking right! We not fighting?


1.My opinion: The painting is distasteful, disrespectful and immoral. As at today’s date it is not unlawful. It lawful status is pending any decision(s) by the South Gauteng High Court;
2. Civil action: Sue for defamation of President’s character. In my layman’s opinion the President’s legal advisors did not advise him adequately regarding this matter and legal resolutions. In a Constitutional democracy when an artist, poet, newspaper, neigbour etc portrays you in a manner that is defamatory whether by words or conduct, you sue for damages. The President was well within his rights to sue the artist, the gallery and the City Press. I’m of the layman’s opinion that legally this route would have yielded the desired results. The court would have found in the president’s favour on the basis of defamation of his character as he was acquitted of the rape charge. This would have sent a strong message to anyone that wants to make malicious and defamatory remarks alternatively any artist who wants to express their opinions that: You do it, but you also accept the legal ramifications of your conduct;
3. Its now understood that many Black people find the display of a leader’s genitals as repugnant, offensive and malicious. One repugnant lesson from the duty pages of history informs us, that many Black people were put on display as objects in museums and carnivals. Sarah Baartman was displayed for European amusement. Her main difference was only her butt. The people who displayed her done so with malicious intent. The intent was to demonstrate to the White people of that day that Black people were different from White people.
4. Its increasingly difficult to assess Bret Murray’s intention. Did he have the same intention(dolus) that the people who enslaved Sarah Baartman had? Was it his intention to insult Black people? Did he have a racist motivation? He should not remain silent on such a contentious issue.It's noteworthy that one of the individuals who defaced that painting is White!
5.” If you know your history,Then you would know where you coming from,Then you wouldn't have to ask me,Who the 'eck do I think I am.”
6. Do we really want to go back to Apartheid era censorship?
7. During Apartheid every newspaper had to apply for registration if they published newspapers more than 10 times a year. The Apartheid government brutally enforced regulations that in essence controlled what every newspaper could and could not publish.
“At the height of the anti-apartheid struggle in the 1980s, when two states of emergency were declared, censorship regulations were tightened. Newspapers were barred from reporting on any demonstrations or activity against the apartheid government or any of its laws.”
8. So we have 2 Constitutional rights at odds: Freedom of expression(S 16) and Human Dignity(s10), it’s noteworthy that both these fundamental rights can be limited in terms of section 36.
9. All our leaders regardless of their race, religion and political affiliation should now diffuse racial tensions. They should take a peace making role and not a role that causes further division and strife.

[bobo thethe]

I thnk da president should step down 4 his sake coz da painting shows lack of respect but respect u earn it.I dnt knw hw he lost it but 4 sure he lost it,remember what they have done 2 Mr Mbeki dts what gt when u undermine the power of education

[Blurock]

Why does the artist not come forward and explain his intentions and the real meaning of his painting? Does he have the courage to defend himself?

JZ deserves all the criticism that he is getting. I do not regard him as a leader and his reputation speaks for itself. However, that is my personal opinion and it does not give me the right to divide a nation and to fuel racial tension by disregarding other people's feelings and culture.

[adrianh]

I can just se the headlines:

Troublesome Totti causes Toi Toi

[Citizen X]

Why does the artist not come forward and explain his intentions and the real meaning of his painting? Does he have the courage to defend himself?

JZ deserves all the criticism that he is getting. I do not regard him as a leader and his reputation speaks for itself. However, that is my personal opinion and it does not give me the right to divide a nation and to fuel racial tension by disregarding other people's feelings and culture.

This artist Bret Murray should come forward in the form of a live TV interview or live radio interview. He and he alone is the original source of this controversy. He should have exercised greater awareness of cultural taboos and what may or may not be offensive to other people. I personally was never before this debacle aware that it’s taken as an insult in the Black community for someone to depict a leader with his genitals exposed. Artists, poets by virtue of their profession should be aware of what will be deemed to be offensive or not. I’m not an artist so this standard of awareness does not apply to me as I will not be introducing any painting for public viewing. This also does not mean that we must now go back to Apartheid like censorship. I maintain that this painting is distasteful, disrespectful and immoral but it is not unlawful. The President should have just sued the artist, the gallery and City Press for defamation of character. Leaders should display statesmanship in such matters. They should promote restraint, dialogue and peace. They should not promote racial tensions in a country with a history of racial tensions. In light of this development, they should now promote workshops in Schools, Universities and the workplace on what different cultures find to be offensive and why they find these acts to be offensive. This will be good statesmanship but allowing a Black v White situation is very poor statesmanship!

[wynn]

Zapiro just getting warmed up

Ha ha ha Zapiro

[Citizen X]

I respect freedom of expression. I just think that in the racial tension aftermath of this painting everyone should show restraint. I’ve come to realize that Bret Murray and Zappiro don’t have money as their problem. It therefore costs them nothing to engage in such activities. Bret Murray made some good money on that painting. Both Bret Murray and Zappiro don’t have to go into a workplace every single day where you mingle with people from all races, religions etc. Knowing now, that Black people find such portraits as insulting and distasteful, they should no longer engage in such activities. It’s now apparent that Black people are sensitive to such portraits for several historical reasons. Having a gripe with JZ is one thing but to now offend every day Black people is just not right. You have to draw the line somewhere.
I still maintain that the Government at their costs must initiate workshops in schools, universities and the workplace on what offends the various cultures and sub cultures. It’s one thing to unwittingly insult someone , it’s quite another thing to intentionally hurt people.
What Zappiro is now doing is hurting Black people who are sensitive to this kind of portraits. Such Black people coming from all backgrounds and income groups. Many of them may not even be ANC members.

[tec0]

I respect freedom of expression. I just think that in the racial tension aftermath of this painting everyone should show restraint. I’ve come to realize that Bret Murray and Zappiro don’t have money as their problem. It therefore costs them nothing to engage in such activities. Bret Murray made some good money on that painting. Both Bret Murray and Zappiro don’t have to go into a workplace every single day where you mingle with people from all races, religions etc. Knowing now, that Black people find such portraits as insulting and distasteful, they should no longer engage in such activities. It’s now apparent that Black people are sensitive to such portraits for several historical reasons. Having a gripe with JZ is one thing but to now offend every day Black people is just not right. You have to draw the line somewhere.
I still maintain that the Government at their costs must initiate workshops in schools, universities and the workplace on what offends the various cultures and sub cultures. It’s one thing to unwittingly insult someone , it’s quite another thing to intentionally hurt people.
What Zappiro is now doing is hurting Black people who are sensitive to this kind of portraits. Such Black people coming from all backgrounds and income groups. Many of them may not even be ANC members.

Why is it that only the majority has the right to be offended? I find it interesting that the 58 year old minority seems not be noticed at all. And he was the first to have defaced the painting.

It seems that the justification and ramifications regarding this topic just became a pedestal for censorship. Again the minority gets chewed out for one person's actions.

Knowing now, that Black people find such portraits as insulting and distasteful, they should no longer engage in such activities.

Is it then acceptable for an ex minority politician to be pained in the nude after his brutal murder?

[Citizen X]

Tec0, it's not acceptable for any person, group or party to engage in activity that is offensive to any person, party and group. Hence, the workshops in schools, universities and workplace suggestion. Going forward, I think that if we have these workshops, we'll will then know what all racial groups, cultures and sub cultures find offensive and thereby know what is offensive to each other. Artists and poets can and should continue their trade undeterred but the person or persons that they insult should utilise the defamation of character route. It will not be wise to censore the media and freedom of expression. These rights are at the heart of a Constitutional democracy..

[AndyD]

I don't think the artist needs to explain himself, people have already decided what the painting means to them and that's what matters. The racial divide, the simmering hatred and all the other negative emotions were already there and have been for some time, the painting was merely a catylist that brought them to the surface like a poultice on an infected boil.

I hope there's a thousand more paintings and a thousand more offended Zuma's, maybe bringing the real issues to a head will see them being addressed.

[adrianh]

There is another side to this entire saga. First read this statement then I'll explain what I mean:

"When I walk down a road and a dog barks at me, it says a lot about the dog and nothing about me."

Ok, so this dog raises its voice and says its piece. We are free to react whichever way we choose, we can let it slide, we can kick the dog or we can even write to the newspapers about it. Every time my daughters come home and say that that somebody said something nasty to them I try to teach them that it is a fact of life, there will always be somebody that has something nasty to say. I could go to the school and ask for the nasty child to be punished or even expelled, but of course the problem is that there will always be another nasty child lurking around the corner. The girls need to feel secure enough in themselves not to let sillyness get to them, they need to realize that the person making the statement makes more of a statement about themself than they do about the topic at hand.

So, in that vein, JZ should also be big enough to say that he doesn't take a painting to heart, that he painting says a lot about the views of the painter and nothing about him. If he was a true statesman he would have been able to handle the situation elegantly without taking offence and in so doing shown that he is a big enough man not to allow schoolboy "art" to offend him.

Remember Winston Churchill's comeback...(he got the lady good without hauling her off to court)
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.