Put Your Back Into It...

I do not know why or when this happened, but to me, it seems that in the last decade or so, the etiquette of hugging has changed a lot. Perhaps it is my discomfort with hugging that has changed my memories but I near on certain things were not this way. Far as I remember, coming to a point where you hugged someone was a marker that your friendship had graduated to a new level and at such a point, where you have developed something of a relationship with someone, I have absolutely no issue with hugs. However, to me, it seems that nowadays, hugging is part of the normal social discourse and is expected from the outset. At times, it almost seems if you do not hug, you are to be looked at with an element of distrust, for you must be some sort of misanthrope destined to be the next Oklahoma bomber.

Being someone who hangs out with a fair number of ‘liberal types,’ an old friend of mine used to sneer, I run into more than my fair share of huggers. When engulfed in a warm embrace from someone whom you would have been more than happy to have given a mere handshake a lot of thoughts can run through your mind, sometimes, particularly when hugged by the creative, artistic type, the thought comes straight from my nose to my brain. But more often than not, the thought is one of, how did I end up in this situation, how is it that this person I don’t know, is holding me, clutching me, overpowering me with themselves?

As such, whilst there is not much I’m certain on when it comes to that great question, ‘who am I,’ this much I am certain of; despite all indications to the otherwise, I am a reserved person. BFF1 and BFF2 would attest to this, having had to poke, prod and prick until I revealed the most basic of details about myself. Thanks to them, and a few years of life experience, despite it being who I am, I have somewhat learnt how to navigate life without entirely coming off as an utter social dilettante. Living in an Oprah-fied world, where talking about feelings, expressing yourself, and finding “Eat, Pray, Love,” to be the greatest film of all time, and a book you swear to one day read, it is not easy being someone such as myself, someone who enjoys other people, but not too much of them.

Fighting off the last remnants of a hangover, lying on a bed, BFF3 next to me, when this guy walked in, I was certain I was to be spared a hug. Yes, I may have been fully dressed, yes, he may have known BFF3, but the facts remained; He was a stranger, I was in a bed, and failing that, BFF3 next to me would certainly act as a buffer in ensuring no hug was deployed my way. As he said his goodbyes, all of 20mins after I had met him, he threw hugs his hugs around the room, then came to BFF3 and hugged her, I breathed a sigh of relief, safe in the knowledge that there was no way that he would even try with me.

As he practically climbed over BFF3, lay atop of me and enveloped me with his arms saying, ‘put your back into it,’ much of what’s written here ran through my mind, was this what life was to be like forever? Even with the barrier of another human being, the awkward position of being on a bed, was a handshake, a goodbye wave not okay, was the hug still to be forced upon me, was it too much ask just to be left alone?

The Golden Age Of Mandela: Is It Over

“Madiba is like the biblical Moses, who took the children of Israel from the land of bondage, to the Promised Land, the land of milk & honey.” This quote from ANC spokesperson, Jackson Mthembu heralded the beginning Nelson Mandela’s birthday celebrations which can sometimes seem to stretch a good couple of months. It would seem there is an argument to be made that Jackson Mthembu missed his calling as that piece of prose is almost second to none. Only almost, as I would not discount the ANCYL’s Nyiko Floyd Shivambu, (he of the infamous Helen Zille’s sleeping around comments) being able to one up even those dizzying height of hyperbole.

I may joke, but as of late, I have noticed that there is a shift in South Africa to no longer look at Mandela in the golden hue in which he is presented. This is a debate and a critique that I welcome. The majority of comments I have read & heard on this debate have been fair & evenhanded; highlighting that South Africa’s freedom was not won by Mandela single-handedly. As Winnie Mandela is alleged to have said to the London Evening Standard, “There were many, others, hundreds who languished in prison and died. Many unsung and unknown heroes of the struggle, and their were others in the leadership too…” Other critiques have centred on his legacy purely as a politician, questioning his policy decisions, RDP, HIV/AIDS Macro-Economic policy etc. These discussions are both fair and necessary.

However, there is also a disquieting minority which whether intentional or not, strike as flippantly dismissive of Mandela’s legacy, merely scoffing, showing an attitude of, ‘Mandela, yeah whatever.’ With flights of fancy such as that of Jackson Mthembu it is east to be derisive. However, that does not change that it is also lazy and to be frank; stupid. The basis of these comments seems to be that there is no substance to the image of Mandela that we have. This notion leave me both angry and confused.

From the moment he was dubbed the ‘black pimpernel,’ Mandela became a figure shrouded in a sense of mystery. Upon his release, the mystery to a degree ended, another era in the image of Mandela came to be, the era of Mandela, ‘the living legend.’ One cannot deny that the image the world has of Mandela has transcended who he is, however, that does not mean there is no substance to the image we have of him. His name is now uttered with those of Ghandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. Mandela during his incarceration was used by the ANC as a call around which all South Africans and people around the world against the Apartheid regime could rally. Used is perhaps too strong of a term as Mandela himself was quite willing for this, to happen.

Mandela is quoted as saying: “That was one of the things that worried me – to be raised to the position of a semi-god – because then you are no longer a human being. I wanted to be known as Mandela, a man with weaknesses, some of which are fundamental, and a man who is committed, but, nevertheless, sometimes fails to live up to expectations.” Despite these misgivings, Mandela allowed himself to become what South Africa needed. Someone that no other politician or figure in South Africa could play. Mandela is a figure around which South Africans of all races and creeds could look up to and admire. Mandela was more than a hero for black South Africans; he was a hero for ALL South Africans. Mandela has allowed us to transcend the multitudes of ways we choose to separate ourselves from each other, has shown us a way forward to forgiving each other of our past wrongs or as one tweet put it, “Zuma may have fathered half the nation, but #NelsonMandelaRocks because he’s the one who raised us.

Barack Obama On Iraq: The Next George Bush?

Part of then presidential hopeful, Senator Barack Obama’s, platform was a steadfast promise to bring the troops home and pull out of Iraq. Though I was a supporter, I believed that the US had no choice but to remain in Iraq for a far longer term than what Senator Obama was selling to voters. But I was in on the secret. In all my infinite wisdom and jaded world weariness, I knew what Senator Obama’s true plan was. I knew that the Iraq war would never truly end. Yes, the war would ‘end,’ but with a long-term presence of American troops left in Iraq to ‘advise, assist & support Iraqi troops.’

In much the same way, Sarah Palin made the call on President Obama’s ‘hopey changey stuff,’ I made the call on Senator Obama’s electoral strategy on Iraq; rather than a bait & switch, it was a bait and hook. Show them what they want and give it to them, but with a till then unseen hook

Again, like Sarah Palin; I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Seven years, five months & twelve days after George W. Bush sat in the Oval Office and announced the start of America’s invasion of Iraq, Barack Obama sat in that very same office to announce the end of US combat operations in Iraq and reiterate the US’ agreement with Iraq to have a full troop pull-out by 2011. Perhaps remembering the ignominy that followed George Bush’s turn as a fighter pilot when he announced an end to ‘major combat operations,’ and stated the Iraq mission accomplished, the tone of Barack Obama’s address was far more sombre and presidential and far less John Wayne in the mould of Tom Cruise. Though Obama was being forthright in his campaign, however one has to wonder was this decision to pull-out is a decision many years too early, whether it is a decision that will one day come back to haunt Obama and but most importantly America.

The fact is, whilst there may be a largely irrelevant debate over whether this truly marks an ‘end’ to the US’ war in Iraq, or will that milestone only be truly reached in 2011 when all US troops have pulled out of Iraq, legally, and for all intents and purpose this US’ involvement in this war was finished, as promised, by Barack Obama when he made that address. As it ought to be, come 2012, Iraq will most probably not be an issue for Obama. However, undoubtedly part of Obama’s legacy, something that any US president holds dear and will fiercely defend, is this decision to end the Iraq War. Question is, though right now to America, this is one of the best things Obama has done, 5yrs, 10yrs down the line, will this be looked back on as one of the worst?

Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans support a troop pull-out, unlike Obama, polling also shows that Americans, neither believe that Iraqi security forces or the Iraqi government will be able to maintain the peace or successfully handle the political situation respectively. Having always had American troops to be the proverbial ‘security blanket,’ we can’t be certain just how the Iraqi troops will fare in handling Iraqi security. However, when it comes to the politics, the signs don’t bode well. Despite successfully holding elections earlier this year, Iraq, six months later, is still yet to form a government. Even more worrying is that much of the infighting between Iraqi politicians in forming their government is the very thing Barack Obama stated in his Oval Office address the Iraqi people have rejected; sectarianism, perhaps the greatest danger to Iraq’s future, which thus in turn presents a danger to America’s future as well.

Should the opinion of Americans be vindicated and the very tenuous peace, or rather, what passes for peace in Iraq fails to hold, what then? There of course, is the possibility that what America already sees as the ‘maligning influence,’ of Iran in Iraq may increase. In comparison to the worst case, and not at all far-fetched scenario, that outcome, would most probably be seen as a victorious. What most analysts fear, and some believe may occur, is that Iraq could become a failed state, particularly a failed state on the order of Somalia and Pakistan; a state where Al-Qa’ida has been able to gain a foothold and from there launch its operations. Even though the focus is on ‘home-grown terrorists,’ as George Santayana wrote, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Yes, Al-Qa’ida in Pakistan is focused on Pakistan & Al-Qa’ida is Somalia is focused on Somalia, but on the 10^th of September 2001, general thought on Al-Q’aida in Afghanistan was that it to, was just focused on Afghanistan. The next day we all saw the danger they can pose regardless where they’re based.

The history books are littered with cases of the leaders who took decisive actions against the advice and warnings of many only to be proven to have miscalculated greatly, quite fitting, the most recent example is of course George W. Bush, who seven years, five months & eleven days ago to Obama’s address, decisively invaded Iraq. The arguments against a pullout in Iraq are far less widespread and in the face of the losses the US has faced in Iraq this is understandably so, nevertheless the arguments do exist. Despite the belief of those who support those arguments there is no way of knowing what will happen in an Iraq without the US, and we will have to wait and see if Barack Obama will come to rue sitting in the Oval Office to make an announcement on Iraq in as much as George Bush surely must.

The Unity of The World Cup Is Gone & We’re The Better For It

Though I somewhat remember them, I was too young to truly appreciate how momentous our first democratic elections were in 1994, or how South Africa united behind the Springboks during the 1995 Rugby World Cup. For me, never had I seen South Africans be as one as they were during the Football World-Cup. At twelve noon on the 9th of June, South Africa ground to a halt and the world was introduced to the now ubiquitous sound of the 2010 Football World Cup, the vuvuzela. Though World Cup euphoria had been gripping the nation for a while prior to that moment, for me, it was only in that moment that I realised just how big of a deal the World Cup was going to be. The World Cup of course was all about the football, however, but for South Africans, the most memorable aspect of it was the sense of unity we felt. As Jackie Janse Van Rensburg, commented on a previous blog post, “to me, it was never about the game per se, I love the vibe, the unity, the pride, the positivity we have been experiencing.”

The evening of Bafana-Bafana’s encounter against Uruguay, a tweet disapproving of a comment made by CNN anchor, Hala Gorani, on air, made it’s way onto my timeline on Twitter, it said,

“Hala Gorani (#CNN) just reported that the sense of unity in SA ‘won’t last.’ WTH?!”

Despite my initial response to the World Cup, by then, as everyone else was, I was fully ‘feeling it,’ and commented on that tweet with a single word, “disappointed.” I was more than a little surprised to get a response from Hala Gorani who elucidated on her statement saying,

“Wrong. I said the World Cup excitement that unifies a country (as it did in France) naturally dissipates after the event is over.”

Basking in the glow of a World Cup successfully going off without a hitch; surrounded by the honking of vuvuzela’s; high on pre-match euphoria at that moment, forgetting all my pre-World Cup scepticism I admit, I immediately discarded the comment as nothing more than Western pessimism. Looking at what has been going on recently in South Africa, I could not have been more unfair and wrong, Hala Gorani was right, that spirit has dissipated.

When I first started writing this blog, I fully intended to lament this as a sad regression. Nevertheless, three weeks after starting it, I could not finish it. I wish I could chalk this up to ‘writers block,’ but I cannot, the reason I could not write it, was that I did not think this was a bad thing. In all the excitement over the World Cup, the enjoyment of the spirit of for the first time ever seeing what South African’s can accomplish when united as one nation, I forgot something that I’d always believed in; nationalism is anything but positive. Like many governments, the Apartheid regime used ‘nationalism,’ as a justification for many of its crimes, therefore that in democratic South Africa we have always shied away from that moniker is hardly surprising.

Patriotism, national pride, a spirit of ubuntu, call it what you will, it is nationalism. The very thing that those in power throughout history and the world over have used to corral their people from the most ridiculous of actions, to the most heinous of crimes. This is not at all an original thought on my part; wherever nationalism raised its ugly head, there have been those far more erudite than myself who have made this argument. Albert Einstein for example said, “Nationalism is an infantile disease… it is the measles of mankind,” or even more succinctly, William Blum who wrote, “If love is blind, patriotism has lost all five senses.”

Many would say that the national pride that we experienced in South Africa is different, that we spearheaded it, not following any directive. To have pride in yourself, or something that you can ascribe to being part of is natural to people, that’s why we’re proud of ourselves, our families, of our cultural groupings, that’s why we move to being proud of ourselves as a nation, even with no real push from governments. However, that in itself is the very insidious nature of nationalism. It does not necessarily have to start as something that those in charge have created, but they invariably turn back and draw on it for their own purposes.

This may seem far-fetched but it is happening. As it became clear that a strike was inevitable, the government not only began to portray workers as ill-informed on their offer, and thus irresponsible in their threat to strike, but also as unpatriotic, or for instance, in the arrest of Mzilikazi wa Afrika, the calls from the ANCYL for him to be charged with high treason. Before we all comfortably sit back and say, but nobody took either of those instances seriously, angered at Mzilikazi wa Afrika’s ‘counter-revolutionary’ articles, consider the crowd, who forced him to have to exit from the rear of the courthouse when released on bail. They may be easily dismissed; after all, they are just rabid ANC supporters with no true understanding of our constitutional values but then how many people, how many of us, when the strike started immediately commented on how this was destroying the great national spirit we had built up during the World Cup? The two examples may seem utterly antipodean, but how can that be when they are both linked by calls to the ‘greater good of national unity.’

Yes, the national pride that we had was a heady joy. For someone like myself, for whom South Africa had always been a nation of people constantly at each others throats, and I imagine even for those who remember the 1994 elections, or Francois Pienaar lifting the Rugby World Cup trophy with Nelson Mandela by his side, it was amazing to see us all standing together for one common cause. Be that as it may, that has passed, and though it’s more than natural for us to feel despondent to see ourselves returning to the way we were, I’d rather things be this way. I wish I could see it another way, write it away in a lovely fashion, but the fact is, without that spirit of national unity we are an ugly nation. We have seen ourselves at our worst in the last couple of weeks with the Press debates, and the strike. Nevertheless, amidst all that ugliness, we have seen ourselves at our best; not waving a flag, blowing on a vuvuzela or proudly singing Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika, but rather mopping the floors in a deserted hospital. I would hope that this was not because of national pride, or patriotism, but because of something far more simple, something not innate in South Africans only, but innate in humanity as a whole I would like to think; because it was the right thing to do.

ANC and COSATU: The Greatest Dangers To Worker’s Rights

Come the announcement that the government and COSATU have entered into wage negotiations, South Africans knows we have entered into another one of our political circus seasons. COSATU leaders take a moment from their daily work of partaking in the various squabbles and factional battles of the ANC. Government and trade unions engage in their debate of who, if anyone should be barred from engaging from striking, on the basis that they are an ‘essential service.’ The comfortable middle-class, (ironically and hilariously often identified as ‘leftist’) dust off and trot out their usual complaints; complaints that, ‘the country is being held to ransom,’ that ‘striking is nothing more than blackmail,’ that in the face of South Africa’s soaring unemployment ‘these workers should be grateful they have a job and get back to work.’ Nevertheless, the one fear, that all share, is the 2007 Public Sector Strike, which was marked by damage to private and public property, intimidation and violence will be repeated. Regrettably this week saw that fear come to be a reality with such reports. As with the 2007 strike, as fully expected, the media has focused on these reports and COSATU has denounced the media for focusing on ‘sporadic but regrettable occurrences.’ Whether these occurrences are widespread or sporadic is of no consequence. The very fact that they occur cannot be tolerated, and that is very much what COSATU and by in large government as well seems to do with their strongly worded denouncements followed by, well, followed by nothing.

The simple fact is this; the moment a striker commits violence, intimidates or in any way illegally impinges on the rights of another, they cease to be protected by the rights, which protect workers on industrial action and no longer are striking workers, but rather, are criminals. Furthermore, the actions of these criminals are ignominious for two primary reasons. Beyond their basic criminality, they present perhaps the greatest danger to the crucial right of workers to engage in industrial action. More so than any call The Right may make against these rights.

With each successive wave of violence and intimidation at the hands of these so-called strikers, the public understandably gets even more disillusioned with unions and the strikes they embark upon. What the government (which has regularly reiterated their support for protecting this right) and COSATU have to realise is that their empty rhetoric of denunciation is just as, if not more so, harmful to the right to strike than the actions themselves. People have a right to expect health-care when going to a hospital that their kids will be safe when at school, that if they choose not to participate in a strike, they will be free of intimidation.

However, having spoken to some striking workers, I have come to realise that these actions are not the acts of marauding hooligans, as the media often seems to depict them. There are reasons behind it. Firstly, the statements the government puts out which characterise their position as intractable does nothing more than add oil to an understandably angry fire. The initial tone of these messages, dismissive of the actions and that the government can handle the crises (though this has clearly been shown to be not true) further engenders anger. Even if the government had forgotten, recent events particularly service delivery protests and the ‘xenophobic violence’ reminds one of the South African populace’s propensity to violence. All a result of what political theorists refer to as, Political Socialisation.

Despite all these various reasons explaining the violence of so-called strikers, the fact of the matter is, they are excuses. Near all criminals can provide a compelling reason as to why they committed the acts that they did but our legal system does not accept excuses. A broken law is a broken law, and whomever broke it must be swiftly dealt with. In another blogpost earlier this year, I mentioned how in Junior School we were taught on the correlation between rights and responsibilities. For many, in defending the rights of strikers, they have drawn on this thinking, characterising the violence and intimidation, as an ‘abuse’ of that right and it is easy to see where this idea stems from.

However, I wholeheartedly disagree. To in any way equate the violence to the strikes, muddies the water on the right of workers to embark on industrial action. I’ll reiterate this point, the violence and intimidation are in no way equitable to the majority of striking workers, who are making use of their right peacefully. The aims behind the two acts may be the same, but one is a legal and constitutionally protected action, the other a nothing more than a mere criminal act. One only hopes that sooner, rather than later, the ANC government and COSATU will realise that by issuing an endless ream of empty statements, they are not protecting the cardinally important right to strike, but rather being its greatest danger.

Barack Obama: Homophobe in Chief…

Judge Vaughn Walker, in handing down his ruling on California’s gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, marked the 4^th of August 2010 as yet another historic day in the long battle for the recognition and protection of equal rights in the US. Whether they praised or decried the decision, across America reactions poured in recognising the historic nature of this ruling. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, in her reaction recognised the two basic rights Propostion 8 violated, and referred to it as, “a stain upon the California constitution.” California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, himself an opponent of Proposition 8, closed his statement saying, “Today’s decision is by no means California’s first milestone, nor our last, on America’s road to equality and freedom for all people.” From President Obama, the silence was deafening. The only reaction was the following statement from a spokesperson, “The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transsexual) Americans.”

The reaction from ‘LGBT Americans,’ to that can be characterised overall being a resigned sigh. Murmurs of confusion and discontent on his LGBT credentials have tailed President Obama for a while now. Most of those murmurs, which are now escalating to outright denouncements, have been heard in primary from the LGBT media, but even now, the mainstream media is noticing this spreading zeitgeist.

As ­­­­­­­­­­­­­former Massachusetts State Senator,­ Jarrett Barrios, President of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) questioning whether to accept an invitation to the White House’s first ever event commemorating the Stonewall Riots, the political coming out of the LGBT community put it: “The problem is that I haven’t been as excited as I’d like to be about President Obama. I’d been excited by Candidate Obama. His campaign invited people like me and my husband Doug…into has aspirational vision of America the possible.” In running for office, Barack Obama promised many things, some attainable, some not, but most, falling into a murky grey in-between area. As candidate Obama, his LGBT positions were progressive and sympathetic to the cause, but once President Obama, there has been a marked lack of action on many of these promises.

A sad reality is that in American politics, LGBT issues tend to fall into that murky grey area though there is one that isn’t; ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ (DADT), the US military’s gay-ban. Whilst Obama using presidential powers may not be able to repeal DADT, as the repeal of this policy slowly makes its way through Congress Obama does have the power to stop its implementation, and has he? The answer to that question is a sad, expected and disappointing, no. With 80% of Americans being in favour of a repeal of DADT, scores of mainstream Republicans have also come out in favour of its repeal. This leaves Obama, who in public iterates support for such a move, and has the power to at the least to stop its implementation with the single signing of an executive order, having done nothing to support this policy.

As his time in office passes, the true image of Obama’s views on LGBT issues, despite his stated policies is starting to emerge, and the image, in light of his actions, and inactions, is a disquieting one. However, perhaps even more disquieting is the opinion, that, no, Obama is not putting forth a homophobic agenda, but rather is playing politics with basic civil rights.

In 1996, he is known to have been in favour of gay marriage. However, the higher his political aspirations have been, the further he has shifted from this unpopular position. In 2004, he then was quoted as saying he didn’t support gay marriage, and favoured civil unions, but only for strategic purposes (to advance the cause for equal rights). Though couched in politically correct language, the message is basic and as ugly as it always has been; separate but equal.

But the drift didn’t stop there. By the time he ran for office, he was stating that personally, he believed that marriage ‘is between a man & a woman,’ and that it is a ‘religious’ matter and a ‘state’ issue. Today, we are now in an even more perplexing position. By Sunday, Obama’s administration has to indicate whether it plans to appeal a decision to appeal a ruling that found an element of yet another odious piece of homophobic legislation, the Defence of Marriages Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Disappointingly, the signs are that they will, despite, yet again, Obama’s official policy being that DOMA should be repealed.

In a memorable, though nonetheless contrived piece of dialogue, from The Interpreter, Nicole Kidman’s character opines to Sean Penn’s that she is ‘disappointed,’ in the politician the movie revolves around. He replies; “Disappointed is a lover’s word.” He’s right, ‘disappointed’ is a lover’s word. That ‘disappointed’ is a word that is often used in describing Barack Obama by the left of American politics and specifically the LGBT community is telling.

Whilst to call him ‘homophobe in chief,’ may be too early a call to make, and one to harsh to be ever made, the facts are as follows. Obama presented himself as someone who could be relied on to advance the LGBT cause, that his election to the Presidency and the passing of Proposition 8 came on the same night, lessened the blow of Proposition 8. However, nearing two years into his Presidency, it is time that some serious focus is placed on this image. He says the right things, but it’s time to recognise the reality; his inactions and most damning, his actions speak volumes. Perhaps it is time for the LGBT Americans to take that disappointment and channel it into a politician who will champion the LGBT cause with real action, not just one who does so with soaring, inspiring, yet ultimately and disappointingly, empty rhetoric.

Gay Pride: Is There Really A Point Anymore?

In his Daily Maverick Opinionista column, Simon Williamson asks the question that every June (LGBT Pride Month) is asked in the LGBT community & media, ‘has the time for Pride celebrations perhaps passed?’ The thrust of the argument in general is that we are now in a ‘post gay era,’ an era where one’s sexual orientation is of no importance, where ‘strategic essentialism,’ to deliberately and with purpose, separate oneself from society is no longer necessary. I must admit, this is an argument I could easily see myself agreeing with.

As Simon points out, one could argue that perhaps some prejudices and discriminatory ideas around homosexuals continue as a result of the gay community separating itself from society. That is a not an easy proposition to accept as the aim of strategic essentialism is to forward the primary gay cause, acceptance. However, no matter how difficult, it is one that must be accepted as a distinct possibility. Despite the allure of that argument, I would have to disagree and argue that; the world over, and South Africa in particular; there is still a place for strategic essentialism.

The fight for rights by minorities or any other oppressed group is never truly complete. If the undergraduate analysis can be excused, power relations in society can be said to be static, and if at all fluid, are painstakingly slow to change. A case in point is the struggle for women’s rights. Though things have undeniably advanced a century after the first wave of feminism (the fight for women’s political rights), equally undeniable is that power relations between men and women are still skewed to the former. Essentially, there is still much work being done by women’s groups to both protect and further advance the women’s cause.

Gay rights in relation, particularly gay rights in South Africa, can barely be said to be nascent and thus their protection and advancement is of utmost importance. Across the world, it is generally within particular spaces and even then so, within particular sectors of society that ‘post-gay’ is a reality. The case for South Africa is even more extreme. Most of South Africa’s LBGT individuals (as Simon points out by mentioning the horror of corrective rape) are far removed from the life promised by our progressive constitution. Yet, as with much of South Africa there’s a stark disconnect; to those of us who are gay and live relatively affluent lives in urban areas, where the notion of overt & extreme homophobia is practically foreign, we can enjoy these rights.

Despite this, we cannot be complacent, the reality is homophobic attitudes in South Africa are the prevalent opinion on gay rights. Lest we forget, our very own President stated, gay marriages were “a disgrace to the nation and to God” and that “When I was growing up, an ‘ungqigili,’ (a homosexual) would not have stood in front of me, I would knock him out.” Whilst this statement cannot be taken as irrefutable proof of malicious intent and disregard for constitutional rights afforded to the LGBT community; that statement in conjunction with the less than accepting attitude of the majority of South Africans towards gay rights goes to show the protection of these rights is of paramount importance.

To return to the point I opened with, Simon cannot be faulted with pointing out that strategic essentialism, conceivably is self-defeating. To this though, I would say strategic essentialism is only one element of the gay rights movement, the radical element. However, as the history of minority rights movements shows one needs both the radical and the more mainstream elements for there to be progress in the fight for rights, and protection for those won.

For every Andrea Dworkin who turned off so many to the Feminist cause with her militant positions & aggressive posturing, there must be a Gloria Steinem to temper those positions and postures making them acceptable within society as a whole. For every Martin Luther King Jr. who brought the American civil rights movement into the mainstream of popular political thought & culture, there must be a Malcolm X to test the limits and push the boundaries when moderation of positions turns to appeasement of the powers that be. With the gay rights movement, it is no different. For those of us who already enjoy these rights and for those who are still to benefit from them, no matter what possible alienation it may cause, the radicalism of strategic essentialism is integral to the protection and advancement of these rights.

This post was originally posted on "That's How It Is"