England were robbed. Let's move on.

Yesterday afternoon, a travesty occurred. In a crucial knockout game against their arch rivals Germany, at the FIFA 2010 World Cup, England were robbed. Towards the end of the first half, Frank Lampard chipped the ball from 25-yards out, which then hit the underside of the crossbar and bounced at least two metres over the goal line before being caught by German goalkeeper, Manuel Neuer, without touching the net. The assistant referee ruled that it was not a goal, even though the replays clearly show that the ball was over the line. Everyone was baffled that referees Jorge Larrionda and Mauricio Espinosa could not have seen the goal, even without video replays. The score then stayed at 2-1 until the second half when Germany put together two more fine goals to inflict England's heaviest defeat in a World Cup.

A predictable clamour for 'goal line technology' has now gathered force. The vast majority of these people are, unsurprisingly, English. Steven Gerrard and Rio Ferdinand were two of the England players who felt that if the goal was allowed, then the result might have been different.

             The goal that never was (I do not own this image)

Really? Are we actually going to say that if the score was 2-2, then England would have won? What is the evidence for this? That 2-2 was a more respectable score than 2-1, and it would have generated more self belief among the players? Where was their self belief when the scores were still 0-0, or even when they were 2-1 down? Germany didn't score their third goal until the second half. England were still in the game until the third goal came, maybe even until the fourth goal was scored. I am not saying that it wasn't goal by Lampard. It would be downright silly to say it wasn't, because the replays CLEARLY show the ball crossing the line. But if the England players had the correct attitude, they would have ignored the disallowed goal and moved on. There is no reason why England couldn't have clawed their way back from 2-1. That was the responsibility of the players and coach Fabio Capello, and they failed to live up to it. The players and management should put their hands up and admit that the better team won. End of.

The call for video technology is a selfish one at best. England were denied a goal, so let's introduce video technology. Where was the call for video technology when Thierry Henry controlled the ball with his hand to allow William Gallas to score, and prevent Ireland from qualifying for the World Cup? When the Irish complained, there was not a single peep out of the English press and media. The argument for video technology is that such innovations exist in rugby and cricket. Yes and no. There is no technology in rugby and cricket, only third umpires and video referees who assess replays and make a decision themselves. And even these decisions are subject to scrutiny. Just remember Mark Cueto's disallowed try at the 2007 Rugby World Cup final. You can never have a zero-fault system in sport. Plus, in all fairness, Lampard's goal was a freak of nature. How often does the ball do something like that? Probably one out of a thousand shots at goal might do that. Having goal line technology would therefore be redundant. 

 
It was very unfortunate that England were denied. Everyone is right to be angry at the referees for failing to spot the goal. But that does not necessarily mean England would have won. Germany were far too ruthless and clinical. The goal MIGHT have changed the balance of play, but Germany were simply better than England. Above all, they played as a team. England are still producing good individual players, but they are still failing to play as a unit. All I saw yesterday afternoon was a collection of individual stars with no form or shape. That, and that alone is the reason why England lost. The disallowed goal merely quickened the inevitable.

No Saint Nelson

A new book entitled 'The Young Mandela' is to be released next month, written by David James Smith. Many biographies have been penned about Nelson Mandela, but probably none will arouse more interest than Smith's book. It reveals certain unflattering aspects of the great leader and statesman in his younger years.

According to Smith, Mandela had affairs with, among others, Ruth Mompati, Lillian Ngoyi and Dolly Rathebe during his first marriage to Evelyn Ntoko Mase. Mompati apparently denied having an affair with Mandela, but according to Smith, people close to Mandela are confident that an affair did take place. In addition, Smith contends that these affairs produced children. Evidence in support of this is the alleged appearance of a mysterious woman at the funeral of Makgatho, Mandela's son with Evelyn in 2005. She claimed to be his half-sister from an unknown mother. Mandela’s children also purportedly believe that other half-siblings exist. Smith also references comments from Evelyn herself, struggle stalwart Fatima Meer, and the author Fred Bridgland and two files dealing with the couple's divorce. In the documents, Evelyn alleged that Mandela beat her on numerous occasions. He has denied the accusations. 

 
Mandela and his first wife, Evelyn (I do not own this image) 

Reactions to these revelations will be interesting. Those who foolishly believe Mandela to be an angel will be shocked and appalled. Those of us who know better won't be surprised. Pictures of the young Mandela show an extremely good -looking man, who was very concerned about his fitness. Aside from that, he naturally possessed charisma, charm and a magnetic personality. Therefore, it would not be incorrect to suggest that Mandela would have been popular with the ladies. Even if he did not have any extra-marital affairs, he had close relationships with many women that were not romantic. Most of Mandela’s comrades accept and confirm that he was a ladies man, even if his womanising did not occur while he was married.

The fact remains that Mandela, like a lot of other great men in history, did not lead a saintly lifestyle. It is completely wrong to assume that he was a holy man figure like Gandhi. If there is truth to Mandela’s womanising and wife beating, then the image of Mandela as the divine being who merely appeared and liberated South Africa must be shattered. He was not a divine entity, but a man who was all too human, and prone to making the same mistakes that we are all prone to making at some point in our lives.

This hardly diminishes Mandela. He will forever be remembered as South Africa’s great icon, its founder and liberator. But we should not forget that Mandela was a human being. He had his flaws. This is not to condone his behaviour. It can no longer be proved either way that Mandela beat Evelyn, seeing as Evelyn passed away six years ago. It should also be of note that he denied beating Evelyn, while he has not denied having extra-marital affairs. If anything, showing Mandela’s human side increases his stature. It means that his actions in helping to liberate South Africa were not divine miracles, but the enormous efforts of a human being.

Mandela is the last surviving titan of the South African struggle; many of his closest companions and giants of our struggle have gone to their eternal rest. We should never presume that the struggle for South Africa was waged with the help of divine intervention. Ordinary men and women took up the fight for freedom and paid for it with their own blood, sweat, toil and tears. Their efforts are a testament to the indomitable nature of the human spirit.

Thoughts on struggle songs, old flags and anthems

At the funeral of white supremacist leader, Eugene Terre’blanche, his supporters were seen waving the old South African flag and singing the old national anthem Die Stem van Suid Afrika. Black South Africans would understandably have been upset. The song and the flag are symbols of Apartheid. At the same time, Julius Malema, the ANC Youth League and the ANC are still under attack over the struggle song Ayasab’ amagwala [the cowards are scared], following the death of Terre’blanche. Malema has just returned from his trip to Zimbabwe, where he not only met Robert Mugabe, but also sang the song in defiance of the ban on the song.

Every time we see some silly person waving the old South African flag at a rugby match, it once again draws South Africans into a national debate about history. The ANC is quick to condemn and voice disapproval whenever the old flag rears its ugly head. The people who wave it say that they are simply remembering their history; black South Africans and others say that it is a history of oppression and racism that is being remembered, because that is what the old flag and anthem represents. It would be like a German person waving the old flag of Nazi Germany.
The ANC defended the singing of Ayasab’ amagwala. It has argued that the controversial lyrics, dubul’ iBhunu [shoot the Boer] are not literal. It is metaphorical, and not actually saying ‘shoot the Boer’, or ‘shoot the farmer/white man’ if you prefer. They slammed the banning of the song, saying that when struggle songs are sung, it is not to incite hatred against white people, but merely to remember the history of the struggle.

I’m unsure if the ANC realises that while they support remembering its own history, it is unwilling to remember the other side of the history of Apartheid. It wants a ban on the old flag and anthem. I am not declaring support for Apartheid in any way, I am merely pointing out that the ANC is speaking with a forked tongue; remember the past, as long as it’s our past. If the ANC wants to erase symbols associated with Apartheid, then it should erase symbols associated with the struggle against Apartheid. Because the two narratives are all put of the grander narrative of the history of South Africa. The narratives of resistance and the struggle for freedom cannot be told without knowing the narratives of oppression and tyranny, otherwise we will never know why oppression and tyranny existed in the first place. And then we will never learn from the mistakes of Apartheid and racial segregation.
Julius Malema is a good example of someone who knows the history of the struggle, but doesn’t really understand it. He knows the romantic side of the struggle against Apartheid i.e the armed campaign, singing liberation songs. He doesn’t know anything about Apartheid itself. So he wouldn't know that a song like Ayasab’ amagwala was sung in the context of rising tensions between black and white, and the escalation of the armed struggle. Likewise, those that wave the old flag and anthem do not realise what it represents. They do not understand that the flag and the anthem represent a nation that discriminated against and violently oppressed the majority of its population on the basis of skin colour.

I do not believe that banning either the old South African flag and anthem or Ayasab' amagwala is good for anything.  These relics of the past should belong where most democracies keep relics of their national history; in textbooks, in museums and libraries. We need not forget the history of the struggle or Apartheid, because it made South Africa what it is today. But it is the past, and not the present or the future.

Eugene Terre'blanche's death should be a lesson

Eugene Terre'blanche, the leader of the white supremacist Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (Afrikaner Resistance Movement), has died. He was murdered by two of his farm workers, allegedly over a pay dispute. Terre'blanche gained notoriety as the charismatic, oratorical leader of his organisation, which was modelled on the Nazis and other fascist paramilitary groups. 

In the aftermath of Nelson Mandela's release and the beginning of negotiations to end Apartheid, Terre'blanche and his supporters vowed to create an all-white republic based in the areas of the old Boer republics. They were not hesitant to resort to violence in order to achieve their aims. He was imprisoned in 2001 after assaulting a black petrol station worker, which left the victim mentally and physically impaired. When he was released in 2004, he claimed to have re-discovered God and although he still envisioned an all-white republic, he claimed to have moderated his views. His death essentially marks the end of one of the most violent chapters of South African history; ironically enough, by violent means.

In the aftermath of his death, government and ANC leaders have appealed for calm and have condemned the murder. Opposition parties have also appealed for calm, but linked his murder with the controversy over the singing of the song Ayesab' amagwala (the cowards are scared), which contains the lyrics Dubul' ibhunu (shoot the Boer), by ANC Youth League leader, Julius Malema. Furthermore, members of Terre'blanche's organisation have blamed Malema and the ANC and vowed revenge after Terre'blanche's funeral.

Terre'blanche's murder should be a lesson. Violence begets violence. Terre'blanche was clearly unafraid to resort to violence when he saw it was necessary. And now, he has come to a violent end. His death should serve as a warning to Malema, another divisive figure. Malema is a threat to racial reconciliation in South Africa, with his utterances. Terre'blanche was the same. Malema once vowed to declare war against the South African Communist Party when he was heckled at a Communist Party rally. Terre'blanche was the same; he declared war on the notion of a multiracial democracy. Malema clearly has a problem with people of a different skin colour and those who do not share his world view; Terre'blanche was the same. If Terre'blanche should meet his end the way he lived his life, then Julius Malema should be wary. Because Terre'blanche condoned and waged violence against black people, and the violence that he condoned and waged came back to take him. If Malema does not cease to racially divide South Africa and condone violence against minorities, then he will meet a similar end to Terre'blanche.