FW's latest comments

[gac]

I'm uncertain that FW's comments recently and "shredded" by the press are as sinister or reprehensible as the critics would have us believe. The Sunday Tribune Editor in his column on Sunday 13th suggests that FW has been living a facade all these years and should be stripped of his Nobel award. I'm not so sure but will leave that debate to those better positioned to debate that issue.

The notion of certain groups living in their own pieces of the country makes sense to me. We live in a country of many different cultures and to my mind the protection of individual cultures should receive more attention than it does. At the very core of most cultures is a strong moral fibre but the manner in which those cultures are maintained is what differs and seems to spark heated debate and anger across the cultural divide.

So the bringing together and tacit promotion of cultures into integrated cosmopolitan societies appears to be the catalyst of many problems causing the degeneration and loss of cultural identity. Should we not be encouraging and promoting cultural separation with respect to where we live. It appears to happen fairly naturally anyway but should we not take greater effort to promote the protection of cultures by providing cultural geographic space?

Allowing cultures to live in their own geographic areas is surely therefore not a bad thing PROVIDED that the freedom of movement and choice on where to live is not restricted in any way.

[adrianh]

Well, all I can say to those who take offence to FW's views is this; The State of Isreal.

[Justloadit]

Is this not what we already have world wide, it is called countries! Look at Europe, the Soviet Union, The Asian continent, South America, for goodness sake wake up and smell the coffee.

Statements by the Sunday Tribune Editor was made purely to sell newspapers, by again harping on racism! will we ever get past this short sightedness?

[Citizen X]

1. Mr de Klerk is the last leader of the Apartheid regime. He is also a noble peace laureate. He should therefore exercise a greater awareness when talking about the former Apartheid regime. Regardless of whether the intention behind the ‘homelands,’ was good, it does not negate the fact that Apartheid in it’s entirely is morally repugnant and was a heineous crime against humanity. One can never justify any aspect of it. Even saying (my own words), ‘Yes Apartheid was bad, but we had only the very nest intentions for the homeland system. We truly wanted certain people to be able to develop their own culture and customs unhindered. We meant no harm.’ It doesn’t actually matter what the intention was, the intention doesn’t make it any less morally repugnant than it really was and currently really is!
2. His comments were very similar to Verwoerd’s:"Apartheid could just as easily and perhaps better be described as a policy of good-neighborliness," said a smiling Verwoerd in an interview of that day.
3. Verwoerd described the heinous crime against humanity that we know as Apartheid as ‘good neighbourliness. It’s very possible that sometimes when you confronted with an unexpected question, one tends not to think of the preferred public relations statement but rather says exactly what it is that one thinks.

[Blurock]

So the bringing together and tacit promotion of cultures into integrated cosmopolitan societies appears to be the catalyst of many problems causing the degeneration and loss of cultural identity. Should we not be encouraging and promoting cultural separation with respect to where we live. It appears to happen fairly naturally anyway but should we not take greater effort to promote the protection of cultures by providing cultural geographic space?

Allowing cultures to live in their own geographic areas is surely therefore not a bad thing PROVIDED that the freedom of movement and choice on where to live is not restricted in any way.

Our different cultures is what makes South Africa a great country. We share languages, food and customs and have a real South African spirit when we meet informally (like at sports meetings). Rugby in Soweto has promoted shebeens and braais, respectively an African township pass time and an Afrikaner custom. Our diversity is our strength.

Unfortunately there is a formal element who want to protect cultures and languages by forming exclusive societies and clubs. By being exclusive and "protecting" your culture, one is actually doing more harm than good. Your own people will tire of speeches and exclusiveness and turn away from boring cultural activity.

Informal cultural activities where everyone is welcome to share your food, art, poetry and music promotes cultural diversity. How do we not love Italian, Greek or Indian food? We sing Shosoloza and Sarie Marais and party on St Patrick's day. Will we still do that when we live apart and ignorant of the world outside?

[Dave A]

So the bringing together and tacit promotion of cultures into integrated cosmopolitan societies appears to be the catalyst of many problems causing the degeneration and loss of cultural identity.

At times I wonder if that really is a bad thing. Perhaps it's just healthy cultural evolution.

[wynn]

The 'Grahamstown Arts Festival' is a good example.
Initially started as an 'English Language' revival and celebration with attendant revelry, it has morphed into a multicultural and multiracial celebration of cultures, languages, arts and crafts, even tacking on a 'Science Fair' and a 'Music Festival'
One of the few occasions where the 'Glitterati' mix with the "Hoi Poloi' and 'New Age Travellers' compare notes with 'Academics'.