Clive Simpkins

A lot of Bull about Yengeni

I’ve watched with interest over the last week or so, the mounting brouhaha about the alleged ‘stabbing’ by Tony Yengeni (former ANC Chief Whip) of a bull. It’s actually useful when events like this take place in our country. If only because they provide a forum for dialogue and hopefully a deeper understanding of each other’s ‘culture’. Particularly when it's the irksome task of straddling two cultures.

Yengeni accommodating two worlds.

Animal rights organizations and activists don’t want animals killed at all. Animal welfare organizations, like our own SPCA, don’t want cruel or prolonged slaughter. Understood. But let’s accept that for large numbers of people around the world, hand or ritual slaughter is their chosen (and therefore to be respected) tradition, however it may supposedly fly in the face of Eurocentric, Christian or other belief systems.

If you listen to Contralesa (Congress of Traditional Leaders of SA) President, Nkosi Phatekile Holomisa’s explanation, it makes a lot of sense. Forget whether you believe in the Ancestors or sacrifice. Having carefully listened to Holomisa’s description of the practice, here’s (I hope) a reasonably accurate paraphrase of his explanation. In this specific (Yengeni) instance, it was an ox. Not a bull. Technicality perhaps, but let’s keep to the facts.

The tradition is that when a ‘cleansing’ or other ritual is going to involve the slaughter of the animal, the spear is first simply ‘pointed at’ the animal to identify it to the Ancestors, as the one chosen for the sacrifice. If the animal bellows or makes some other sound, that is taken as a signal that the Ancestors a) Are aware it is the one about to be offered and b) Are pleased to receive this particular animal as the offering Holomisa says that if the animal does not spontaneously make a sound of some sort it should in fact ideally not be used in the ritual. Because it means it is not being acknowledged or received by the Ancestors.

However, it appears that (his words) ‘pricking’ the animal with the spear in order to elicit a sound is (as I interpreted it) kinda border-line OK. If the animal still doesn’t make a sound, it should definitely not be used. Without meaning offence, I fail utterly to see the difference between slitting the ox’s throat (it is going to be eaten after all) and the mass (sometimes pretty unskilled) slaughter of sheep under all conditions during the Muslim festival of Bakri Eid. In this  Qurbani (sacrifice), it’s hopefully the jugular vein and carotid artery of the animal that is severed. This ritual commemorates the ‘almost’ sacrifice of a son by the prophet patriarch Abraham. It is re-enacted via substituting (as did he) a sheep for the son. The sacrificed flesh gets distributed and consumed.

Now to my actual point. A very high percentage of the (mainly white) people who will express outrage at the ritual slaughter of oxen, sheep and other animals, are meat eaters. They blissfully buy a plastic punnet of ‘Veal’ (nice euphemism for a baby bull) decorated with a sprig of parsley from their friendly local supermarket. They haven’t the vaguest idea what the animal went through in a terrifying ordeal through an abattoir before reaching them in that aesthetically ‘sanitised’ manner. So, if they even think to the slaughter component, they can do so without guilt. Schoolchildren were banned from abattoir tours because they emerged from the exit as vegetarians.

When I was a conscriptee in the then SADF, helping to get Portuguese refugees out of Angola in 1976, some of the chaps clubbed together to buy a Brahmin bull off a local (yes, they did pay) for a ‘regimental braai’. There just happened to be a (by trade) butcher doing his three month stint. So they shot the bull with an R1 rifle and the butcher did his skinning and quartering routine. They did the same with a good number of chickens. No R1 bullet involved, but you know what I mean. What I found fascinating was that the majority of the guys (city lads) were unable to eat that meat at the braai. Witnessing (probably in most cases for the first time) what really happens before the steak arrives on the braai, caused spontaneous loss of appetite.

Many people still hunt game as a recreation. I travelled in a light aircraft from Limpopo province with some German tourist ‘hunters’ (clearly rank amateurs) who were laughing uproariously at one of their number who consistently missed the sought-after ‘heart-shot’ in the buck he was aiming at. Instead he blew its hindquarters to bits – leaving one of his slightly more skilled peers to deliver the coup de grace.

If you eat meat, then know and accept accountability or co-responsibility for what the process was before you consume it. You have no real idea what the animal you’re eating went through in crammed, desperately hot, waterless truck transportation, the terrifying wait as it was press-ganged, with flared nostrils toward a slaughter stun-bolt in the head. Which often doesn’t work too well as a stun mechanism and the animal is raised aloft upside down, by one leg and has its throat slit and tendons cut whilst still conscious. The bleeding is also in the interests of producing Kosher or Halaal meat by the way. OK – not all in one common slaughterhouse, but it’s a similar process. Same with chickens. Bled to death or else they don’t conform to the religious requirements. The animal may not be dead before it is bled. I may not like the concept, but I respect the traditions.

Being vegetarian doesn’t say too much. I know of some ghastly, lying, cheating Hindus who think they’re superior because they don’t eat flesh. But as Jesus Christ said, ‘It is not that which goes into your mouth that defiles you, but that which comes out of it.’ I haven’t eaten meat or chicken since 1972. Do I feel superior? No. Adolf Hitler was a vegan vegetarian, dammit. Not a great ad for the ‘club’!

We need to pause and think a little more carefully before we swing into self-righteous condemnation of other people’s cultural traditions and beliefs. There are no ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’ traditions. They’re just very different. Look at any cultural or ethnic group around the world and at what and how they slaughter. There’s actually very little to fuss about in the African tradition of slaughtering. Before abattoirs (cruel as they are) and other more westernised methods of killing were popularised, how the heck do you think the animals died? If you’re a meat eater, live with it. Just because it’s giraffe or dog or bear doesn’t make it terrible - just different.

http://www.imbizo.com

President Mbeki has values bull by the udder

The Sunday Times front page of 14^th January 2007 saw President Thabo Mbeki blame colonialism and apartheid for South African greed. Unless (the usual political refuge) he was quoted ‘out of context’, what he said (inter alia) was: ‘….the pursuit of personal wealth to the exclusion of all else is primarily a consequence of the social and economic relations that developed under colonialism and apartheid.’ I read a few days later that the Prez (on Tim Modise’s radio show) thinks crime isn’t out of control but that we all suffer from misperceptions regarding the extent of it. Until then, I would have been amazed by his colonialism statement - but no longer. His well-established forte is clearly denial.

During the apartheid ‘struggle’, people were united against a common enemy – or so they thought, anyhow. In those days there were still faint vestiges of Ubuntu (African Humanism) left in black South African culture. At its best it echoed sentiments like ‘No African child will be an orphan so long as one African woman lives.’ ‘It takes a village to raise a child’. ‘I am my brother’s keeper’. In between lay, ‘you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours’. At its worst, it’s degenerated into ‘every man for himself and God for us all.’ I’m afraid the latter version currently holds sway in South Africa.

If that ‘caring for your neighbour’, altruistic stuff was real and an integral part of the value system of black South Africans, it would have amplified once the oppressor’s jackboot was lifted. But it didn’t do that. It all but evaporated entirely.

Luminaries in the values evolution field, like the late Professor Clare Graves, Professor Don Beck and others, have proven that values can be and often are distorted when there’s oppression. They typically revert to a lower, more self-centred, self-preservation orientated level of functioning. But in an environment of ‘freedom’ the intrinsic, actual values will have the luxury of coming to the fore. That gives the lie to the President’s assertion.

Can President Mbeki legitimately claim that colonialism and apartheid influences (for which read ‘nasty white people’) are responsible for the rampant materialism, greed, selfishness and lack of concern for the poor and downtrodden in (primarily, given the demographics) black South African culture? I think not. He’s fallen into the same trap as many cultural, ethnic or religious groups.  They will continue to blame for millennia, not their own paucity of good values, work ethic, morals, innovation or energy, but the legacy of their past. Which means I should be able to take refuge behind and excuse any unacceptable behaviour on my part because I had an alcoholic father. That’s plain stupid. Then so is President Mbeki’s thesis.

Convicted fraudster Tony Yengeni emerges from prison and loudly proclaims that the problem in South Africa is poverty and the fact that the bulk of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a tiny percentage of South Africans. What the heck does that have to do with his designer-suited criminal behaviour? He’s a fine one to be shouting the odds on caring for the poor when he’s the default author of the term ‘a Yengeni’ when people refer to expensive Mercedes MPVs.

To cap these ANC rants, erstwhile Parliamentary Speaker Frene Ginwala was quoted in the Star newspaper of January 17^th 2007. She shot off her mouth saying that business people are corrupting politicians. Indeed? I sat in the Centurion home of an MP – at that stage theoretically earning R 11 000 p.m. I was there with someone else to ask for legit networking assistance with a project. The Chinese silk-upholstered designer stainless steel couch on which we sat, probably cost more than all the furniture in my home put together. The artworks on the walls were original oils and acrylics. This highly placed ANC official gobsmacked the businesswoman with me when he quite blatantly and without batting an eyelid told us he’d want a significant cut of any ensuing revenues and that his wife would need to be ‘put on the board’ of our company. No kidding. So Frene dear, are you and your political cronies squeaky clean? Never asked for a kick-back? Sure? Really, really sure?

People, regardless of ethnicity or their past, need to take a careful look at their chosen level of social responsibility, morals, ethics and spirituality. You can’t continue to blame others or circumstances for how you live your life. Well, you can of course, but all that says about you is that you’re consciously ‘playing victim’ and you’re unwilling to accept responsibility and accountability for your own future. This doesn’t say a lot (of good, anyhow) about you.

If we were all to blame someone or some other ethnic group, or some set of circumstances, for who and what we are, and use it as an excuse not to evolve and grow up, we’d have a global pandemic of social dysfunction. What a pity that someone of Mbeki’s alleged intellectual brightness can perpetuate chronic claptrap such as ‘the colonial past is to blame’.

I perceive a subtle but escalating trend in South Africa. All that is, was and ever will be generated by white people is evil. I don’t think so. Had it not been for colonisation, many African cities would be non-existent. Simple fact. Or rampant tribalism might still hold sway. Well, heck, it still does in much of Africa and it isn't too well concealed in South Africa right now.

Was it all so bad Mr President? No good out of it, whatsoever? No legacy of any merit? In my opinion, you set a bad, misleading and highly divisive example, sir. Just as you did on HIV and AIDS.

http://www.imbizo.com

 

Relationship Marketing 2007

I wrote this article as an exclusive for Risk SA Magazine - a journal targeted at the short -term insurance market. Since it's now appeared in the January 2007 edition of Risk SA, here it is for sharing.

Page 2

http://www.imbizo.com

Does the Toyota Prius myth continue?

I posted my article on the Toyota Prius' genuine or otherwise eco-friendliness, on Moneyweb as well. One of the readers has posted a response, which is:

                                      

Name:	Jim Summers
Subject:	Read the Study
Body:	If you actually read the study (by a marketing firm!), you find that one of the primary determinants of the environmental cost is the lifetime of the vehicle. The study assumes that a Prius will only last 1/3 as long as a Range Rover, so you have to buy three to equal it. This is a somewhat dubious assumption. If you instead assume a Prius will last as long as any other car, you come to a completely different conclusion. Most other studies find that manufacturing and disposing a vehicle amounts to 15% of the gas it will burn. This is a significant amount, but not enough to make a Range Rover a better choice than a Prius.
Time:	21:21 Fri 12 Jan 2007

In this morning's edition (Saturday 13th January) of 'The Weekender' - my favourite weekend read - is the article below. I've left just the headline and subhead. The sub-head is the killer.

Is this how the myth gets perpetuated? Or is there in fact no myth? I just find it fascinating that a publication of the calibre of Car Magazine would 'get it wrong'. Or is Jim Summers' conclusion wrong? The specific comment in CAR was this: : “Research conducted by US-based CNW Marketing confirms that taking into account the ‘dust-to-dust’ environmental impact, the Prius rates 25% poorer than a Range Rover Sport. It even scores worse than its little sibling, the Toyota Yaris. The Prius’ relatively low replacement cycle (roughly one third of that of major 4x4s) along with the disposal of batteries and special materials, weighed heavily against it.” Maybe the whole topic of green cars needs to be better explored. It could be rather like the butter/margarine debate. Margarine might be better in immediate cholesterol terms, but the trans-fatty acids it contains are long-term even worse for your health. So what's the truth with the Toyota Prius?

http://www.imbizo.com

Sometimes the grass just isn’t greener

Being a home-baked ‘Greenie’ myself, I’m very aware of the damage that can be done to the cause when emotion holds sway. I wince when I see Greenpeace activists - in South Africa - Earthlife Africa - http://www.earthlife.org.za  - and so-called ‘spokespeople’ on TV defending some or other environmental cause. When are they going to understand that unwashed hair, ragged beards, tie-dyed T-shirts and unkempt appearances do little for media credibility? That look may have worked in the sixties, but not any longer.

I recently caught a few minutes of a panel discussion on SABC TV regarding the ethics of experimentation on animals for medical or other purposes. Again, the bunny-huggers (and I am one) were the weak link in the program. The ‘evil scientists’ - in this case Vets - made calm and rational cases for the need, at some stage of developing life-saving drugs, to test them for specific cellular or other reactions in animals. In their view, this is necessary and helpful even if the animal immune systems and responses don’t mirror those of humans. I’m not arguing their cause - merely commenting on their process.

The two people arguing on behalf of the animals were emotional, irrational, made sweeping statements and generalisations and were an embarrassment to their cause. The one was the secretary of the Nan Hua Buddhist Temple http://www.nanhua.co.za in Bronkhorstspruit. The temple would do well to have as a media spokesperson, someone with a lower-pitched voice, less physical agitation and a calmer demeanour altogether. Not only did he do damage to the bunny huggers, but to the concept of Buddhist tranquillity.

As an example of how emotion can cloud the real issues around global warming, dimming, climate change, environmental pollution and nuclear vs. supposed ‘eco-friendly’ energy sources, look at the accompanying visual. It’s a letter to the editor of the excellent CAR magazine, http://www.cartoday.com January 2007 issue. It debunks the notion that the Toyota Prius, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius which we thought was the poster child for environmentally friendly cars, is the way to go. Read it. Read the editorial response and become more sceptical about claims made by producers or manufacturers of ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘bio-degradable’ or whatever else they want to call it, products or services.

 

People look at enormous windmill-type power generators and assume they’re better for the planet than nuclear. They’re not – because they have the same non-recyclability battery and other issues that the Toyota Prius has. And in some really windy places around the world they’re running at appallingly low levels of efficiency. In the interests of transparency by the way, I’m pro-nuclear. Particularly regarding our evolving South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor technology. http://www.pbmr.co.za

The youthful and naïve British ‘Climate Change Minister’ (what a moniker!), Ian Pearson, has gone for his 15 minutes of fame. Go read http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6233019.stm He’s slammed the airline industry and specifically low-cost carrier Ryan Air http://www.ryanair.com for its contribution to global warming. He’s a total ass of course, because the airline industry globally is guilty of only a 2% contribution to the emissions problem. But because it’s highly visible it’s an easy target and a populist whipping boy. Ryan Air’s CEO, Michael O’Leary, calmly, wittily and scathingly repudiated the argument with the true statistics and facts. Even British PM Tony Blair was cornered by Sky News TV and attempted to weasel his way out of personal culpability because of his long-haul holiday flights. But the media weren’t interested in the 2% airline factor. They were more interested in making a story out of nothing.

What can we learn from this? It’s not helpful to try scoring brownie points with inaccurate and emotive ‘information’. That steadily erodes and undermines the credibility not only of the spokespeople but of the cause itself. Global warming, pollution and other environmental issues start with a constituency of one. You. Me. And unless we individually re-examine our habits and practises, the debate will continue but little will actually change for the better. Meantime, there’s a lot of money to be made from the issue, by a lot of unscrupulous people.

http://www.imbizo.com

Dances with Devils - by Jacques Pauw

This is an astonishing book. Written by what is clearly a very brave (or mad!) journalist with a self-extinction wish.

I read Riaan Malan's 'My Traitor's Heart' earlier in 2006. I thought it was an astonishing expose of what went on behind the scenes of Apartheid atrocities. But Jacques Pauw's book 'Dances with Devils' goes a quantum leap further yet. It reads from start to finish like a brilliant whodunnit.

I was tempted to cut the book in half to make the sheer physical weight more manageable as a 'lie in bed' read. This is a big book in every sense of the word. Its subject matter traverses the continent of Africa in heart-stopping, breath-holding, sleep-depriving fashion.

If, as I have, you've travelled within continental Africa on business, you'll have a sense of the (considerable) urban challenges of doing so. Pauw's journalistic forays take him into remote rural or desert locations with drugged-up warlords and genocide perpetrators, in which his only means of departure or (more accurately) 'escape', is a United Nations food-drop aircraft which might or might not arrive within a week.

If you'd like to read the story behind the stories and documentaries that have featured on SABC TV's 'Special Assignment' program - Pauw's international award-winning video journalism showcase - and gain an unparalleled insight into and an understanding of the intrinsic socio-dynamics of Africa - this is a must-not-miss read. You'll force your friends to read it. Just go ask mine! :-)

Is technology forcing communications change?

OK, we can say tech is forcing a comms change, or we can say that tech’s allowing us to become lazier, more dependent on it, and into the bargain it’s de-personalising the communications process even further. Maybe technology isn’t forcing comms change, but simply aiding and abetting our sloppy use of it.

 

As with you I’m sure, I received what seemed like a gazillion ‘bulk’ SMSs over the festive and New Year holiday period. I didn’t know I was in quite as many mobile phone directories, but I can’t say the messages were appreciated. In my social etiquette book, getting a ‘bulk’ (impersonal) SMS categorises you somewhat, if not totally. In other words, you don’t count enough to get a really personalised message, but ‘we’d better send you one anyhow’. I’d frankly rather not receive it. As soon as the first few words indicates it’s a bulkie, I delete it without bothering to read the rest. Last year I took my god-daughter to task for having the sloppiness, effrontery or lack of thought to send me a bulk SMS. This year she sent me one as a joke and then called.

 

Not in my wildest dreams would I send a bulk message to anyone I cared about unless it were something urgent and several people needed the same info, pronto! I guess composing a message and then just selecting ‘all’ in your phone or computer address book is seductively easy. But give a little thought to what the real message is, that you’re sending. In my opinion it’s not an appropriate one.

One other aspect that folks might want to consider when sending such messages is that it really helps to put your name at the end of it. Mailing a bulk SMS when you might not be in the phone directory of the recipient is kinda dumb. Because it’ll show a number but we’ll never know that the time-wasting message was from you. But hey – there is an upside. The mobile phone networks want to thank you sincerely for generating vast tranches of revenue for them! ;-)