Kruger Again
Jan 22nd 2007, 12:37 am
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Kruger Again
Corn� wrote:
> <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
> news:[email protected] ups.com...
> Corn� wrote:
>
> > Colour is no longer an issue anymore in the new South Africa
>
> The above statement is pure nonsense, and I defy you to justify it with
> a factual argument.
>
> Thabo Mbeki, the ANC, DA, IFP, Desmond Tutu etc. etc. all mention this every
> time again on public holidays.
>
> Corn�
I think I understand now. You're conflating the shared South African
aspiration to "build a non-racial and non-sexist nation" (a paraphrase
of the Freedom Charter and favoured speech line of Mbeki's) with your
assertion that "colour is no longer an issue anymore in the new South
Africa." These two statements are far apart in meaning and significance
(far beyond the non-equivalent terms of 'colour' and 'race') -- I hope
you can see that.
Clearly, you haven't read the national discussion documents or policies
on BEE or BBBEE, much less the literature on transformation and social
justice in South Africa that's more academic and less political (I can
recommend the clear and readable ANC statement on affirmative action
and the new constitution from 1994 that outlines the basic principles
involved, online at http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/policy/affirm.html -
I've given other references to relevant documents and sites earlier in
this thread.).
Of course race is still an issue. For example, every major national
industrial sector has a binding charter on empowering Black South
Africans. Every midsized or larger company and organisation must
produce and publish their race- and gender-oriented empowerment plan
and report on it through a race- and gender-based scorecard -- tourism
may be late to the game, but we're no exception.
Race and gender are issues that must be focussed on in the near term in
order to achieve the goal in the long term. The imbalances of the
present can't be rectified by defining them out of the problem through
semantic flim-flam or having politicians declare them balanced.
We're too far from the NG topic now, so after your last word (which I'm
sure you'll want to get in), please post future discussion on this
topic to soc.culture.south-africa.
Kurt
> <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
> news:[email protected] ups.com...
> Corn� wrote:
>
> > Colour is no longer an issue anymore in the new South Africa
>
> The above statement is pure nonsense, and I defy you to justify it with
> a factual argument.
>
> Thabo Mbeki, the ANC, DA, IFP, Desmond Tutu etc. etc. all mention this every
> time again on public holidays.
>
> Corn�
I think I understand now. You're conflating the shared South African
aspiration to "build a non-racial and non-sexist nation" (a paraphrase
of the Freedom Charter and favoured speech line of Mbeki's) with your
assertion that "colour is no longer an issue anymore in the new South
Africa." These two statements are far apart in meaning and significance
(far beyond the non-equivalent terms of 'colour' and 'race') -- I hope
you can see that.
Clearly, you haven't read the national discussion documents or policies
on BEE or BBBEE, much less the literature on transformation and social
justice in South Africa that's more academic and less political (I can
recommend the clear and readable ANC statement on affirmative action
and the new constitution from 1994 that outlines the basic principles
involved, online at http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/policy/affirm.html -
I've given other references to relevant documents and sites earlier in
this thread.).
Of course race is still an issue. For example, every major national
industrial sector has a binding charter on empowering Black South
Africans. Every midsized or larger company and organisation must
produce and publish their race- and gender-oriented empowerment plan
and report on it through a race- and gender-based scorecard -- tourism
may be late to the game, but we're no exception.
Race and gender are issues that must be focussed on in the near term in
order to achieve the goal in the long term. The imbalances of the
present can't be rectified by defining them out of the problem through
semantic flim-flam or having politicians declare them balanced.
We're too far from the NG topic now, so after your last word (which I'm
sure you'll want to get in), please post future discussion on this
topic to soc.culture.south-africa.
Kurt
Jan 22nd 2007, 1:20 am
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Kruger Again
Corn� wrote:
> Kurt wrote: "and that Kruger and private reserves were
> created in the last century in South Africa by kicking local people off"
>
> The above statement is pure nonsense, and I defy you to justify it with
> a factual argument. If you care to do so, I suggest a new thread.
>
> Corn�.
1. There were no Europeans residing in present-day South Africa prior
to the 17th century, yet extensive archaeological evidence shows
habitation across the region for thousands of years prior (e.g.,
Mapungubwe, Thuthlane and hundreds of iron age and stone age sites).
Hence, there were local African people resident all across the country,
including Khoekhoe pastoralists and San hunter-gatherers before and
after the pre-11th century migration of Nguni-language speaking black
Africans along the Shashe-Limpopo valley and into what is now South
Africa. All sizable tracts of land privately owned (by any entity) in
the colonial era (post 17th century) that did not have local people on
it (or using it for agriculture, hunting or grazing -- especially in
the settled, agrarian Kruger-region of the country) was therefore, de
facto, cleared. That is, the local people were 'kicked off'.
2. The instance with the greatest press coverage in recent years was
the Makuleke tribe, who were forcibly removed from the northern extreme
of the Kruger National Park in 1969 and in 1996 instituted a land
claim. Documentation of this process can be read in "Land Claims and
National Parks - the Makuleke Experience", Bertus de Villiers, Human
Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, 1999. Softcover, ISBN
0-7969-1894-5. This is but one example, and there are many different
such claims outlined at http://www.kruger2canyons.com/restitution.htm
as well as in the publication "Blood and Soil: Land, Politics and
Conflict Prevention in Zimbabwe and South Africa" published in 2004.
There's also another book by Bertus de Villiers, titled "Land Reform:
Issues and Challenges" from 2003 that gives the region (among others)
thorough treatment.
Once you've read those -- and come to terms with the actual process by
which you've come to "own" the land you're now on and profiting from
through tourism -- I'll be happy to continue in
soc.culture.south-africa
And...putting your "Township Tour" in the context of just this kind of
history, pre-history and social context would be a good move in the
right direction.
Kurt
> Kurt wrote: "and that Kruger and private reserves were
> created in the last century in South Africa by kicking local people off"
>
> The above statement is pure nonsense, and I defy you to justify it with
> a factual argument. If you care to do so, I suggest a new thread.
>
> Corn�.
1. There were no Europeans residing in present-day South Africa prior
to the 17th century, yet extensive archaeological evidence shows
habitation across the region for thousands of years prior (e.g.,
Mapungubwe, Thuthlane and hundreds of iron age and stone age sites).
Hence, there were local African people resident all across the country,
including Khoekhoe pastoralists and San hunter-gatherers before and
after the pre-11th century migration of Nguni-language speaking black
Africans along the Shashe-Limpopo valley and into what is now South
Africa. All sizable tracts of land privately owned (by any entity) in
the colonial era (post 17th century) that did not have local people on
it (or using it for agriculture, hunting or grazing -- especially in
the settled, agrarian Kruger-region of the country) was therefore, de
facto, cleared. That is, the local people were 'kicked off'.
2. The instance with the greatest press coverage in recent years was
the Makuleke tribe, who were forcibly removed from the northern extreme
of the Kruger National Park in 1969 and in 1996 instituted a land
claim. Documentation of this process can be read in "Land Claims and
National Parks - the Makuleke Experience", Bertus de Villiers, Human
Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, 1999. Softcover, ISBN
0-7969-1894-5. This is but one example, and there are many different
such claims outlined at http://www.kruger2canyons.com/restitution.htm
as well as in the publication "Blood and Soil: Land, Politics and
Conflict Prevention in Zimbabwe and South Africa" published in 2004.
There's also another book by Bertus de Villiers, titled "Land Reform:
Issues and Challenges" from 2003 that gives the region (among others)
thorough treatment.
Once you've read those -- and come to terms with the actual process by
which you've come to "own" the land you're now on and profiting from
through tourism -- I'll be happy to continue in
soc.culture.south-africa
And...putting your "Township Tour" in the context of just this kind of
history, pre-history and social context would be a good move in the
right direction.
Kurt
Jan 22nd 2007, 1:35 am
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Kruger Again
New thread started under the topic "Improving the safari product in
South Africa"
Kurt
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.africa/browse_frm/thread/55127f85904ee37b/d3139f74f975e1ce#d3139f74f975e1ce
South Africa"
Kurt
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.africa/browse_frm/thread/55127f85904ee37b/d3139f74f975e1ce#d3139f74f975e1ce
