#UnMuteKhayaAngel?

My name is Eddie, I am a 32 year old unemployed graduate. I don't beat myself up about it too much because I am surrounded by some caring and self-reliant strong women in my life. I am quite intelligent and good looking too, though I do not put too much value on either of these qualities since I can hardly turn either of them into rands.

I have an 8 year-old daughter whose mom is solely responsible for, though I love her with all my heart and hope that some day soon I will be able to be provide for her and be the daddy she deserves. I also have a girlfriend, the woman I hope to be able to do right by and build a life with, I love her so much. She is now 8 months pregnant and will very soon be delivering us a baby girl. Baby Smilo, we call her, after her mom's beautiful character.

Yesterday, the 27th of May 2019, my girlfriend sends me a 30 seconds video of a certain female radio personality making a statement about what I would caption "money and relationships" as it relates to girlfriend allowances (umdizo) and then she told me the lady in the video got fired from  her radio job for making that video. Apparently she brought the radio station into disrepute.

This got me thinking: why would such a big radio station dismiss anyone for expressing their personal views? How is she saying "if you are not willing to give your money, don't bother getting into a relationship" enough to get her fired from her job?
Could it be that she is  essentially saying relationships and love affairs are not for the stingy nor for those without money to share?
It could be argued that the lady here is speaking against financial stingyness in relationships; misers need to keep out of the dating scene. Which in my opinion is not such a terrible thing to say. I know a lot of people who feel that way; if relationships are about 'give and take' money cannot be excluded from the giving and taking and misers are known to be only about the taking. In this sense, the lady is becoming a voice for the marginalised who are drained of their energies in relationships and not compensated in anyway by their partners whom they spend money to look good for; smell good for; they spend money to communicate and also to keep alive for the benefit of these lovers who can afford to show appreciation but choose not to because they have better things to spend their monies on. These are the women Khaya Angel, the woman on the video, is offering up her voice too, and they too deserve to be heard.
The rights and interests of women have been ignored for too long in this patriarchal system that governs our communities and this has allowed men to take advantage of women. This is why the dismissal of Khaya Angel might be contrued as a move to silence yet another woman speaking out for the interests of a marginalised group that we all seem to be disregarding. It happened before with Masechaba by the same SABC on Metro FM when she attempted to offer up her voice for the then abused Babes Wodumo. Men make the rules and woman are expected to tow the line, it seems.

But let us try and look at this another way. Ligwalagwala FM, under SABC has decided to terminate Khaya's contract for her behaviour in a video that is deemed to be bringing the station into disrepute.
It is important to take the contents(all inclusive) of this video into careful consideration before making your personal judgement of whether SABC is justified in the decision they have taken:

1.) Khaya appears to be in an SABC studio while making the video, presumably Ligwalagwala FM. An SABC logo appears on the background and another Ligwalagwala FM personality, Lungile Mhango appears to be walking behing her on the background.
2.) She is setting up relationship bounderies and making financially discriminatory remarks against those looking for love without funds.

Now with that in mind, let us consider why this gorvenment entity would want to "silence" this woman for this statement:

We are living in a time of "Slay Queens" and "Blessers"; a time when young girls aspire to own long weaves of foreign hair and long artificial nails and marr their faces with skin powders that look as light as the palms of their hands; just so they can be able to attract blessers who are as old as their fathers, and sometimes grandfathers, as long as they can afford to take care of them financially. We are living in a time where relationships have been reduced to financial transactions and women are reduced to commodities dispensable to anyone who can afford them. This is obviously a result of the patriarchal system which considered women as children who are incapable of any high cognitive function and thus limiting the woman's influence and participation in the economic life.
Realising this injustice, the government and all of its agancies are trying to correct and redress this shortfall by creating more economic opportunities for women and eliminate the mentality that the only way a woman can get her hands into cash is by getting her hands into a man.

The culture of Slay Queens has been responsible for the derailing of this masterplan and has seen a lot of young girls, filled with a lot of self-doubt and a lack of confidence, trade off their books and school uniform for a weave and some long nails. I would be remiss if I fail to mention how this culture of dependency has been responsible for a lot of violence against women and children, which the government also has a lot of programs to try and combat.
We have heard many cases of women and children abuse where the abused woman would be asked why she would not leave an abusive relationship and she would say "because who would feed my kids and financially provide for me if I leave?" This points out to the toxicity of Khaya's statement: if a woman goes into a relationship for the purpose of finding someone who will care for her financially, she will be so dependant on the partner that it would be very difficult for her to leave even when the relationship turns abusive. Is Khaya not aware of this? Have we not heard cases of children raped by their stepfathers or even their actual fathers but their mothers will not report them to the police for fear of starving while the man remains locked up in prison?
I would like to think, as a father of two daughters, that the reason why SABC chooses to dissocciates its brand from such utterances is that they do not wish to be seen as promoting a culture of female dependency; a culture that promotes female helplessness in keeping with the backward stereotypes about women.

History teaches us that women are capable of standing up, not only for womens' rights but for the rights of all humanity just like they did in 1956 as they marched agaist the pass laws in South Africa, a day marked in the SA calender as the National Womens day.
Even though I feel launching a march against the SABC decision would make for a great statement against the perceived muting of a woman, I also feel it would be counter progressive to what women as a collective are moving towards in this time. It is against the women agenda of the 21st century.
I personally pride myself for being the father of way too many daughters (my brother's daughter whom I am raising, a Chess protege; my late sister's brilliant gymnast; my 8 year old academic genius and the character on the way) because I believe that the 21st Century belongs to the female and I wish to be there as a bystander cheering my ladies on or stand guard as a security to ward off trouble.

I know I mentioned Masechaba being dismissed for lending a voice to the voiceless but I am aware that Masechaba's cause was more noble than Khaya's. Masechaba used her plartform to speak up against violence against a woman. Though it was out of turn and apparently an ambush for the Babes who thought she was only there to promote her new music, it was still more noble than a statement promoting dependency and subordination. It would have been progressive to see a women-led march aimed at reinstating Masechaba.
I am sure I speak for all the broke guys when I say "If Khaya had her way, we would remain single forever and would probably have to take up arms and challenge the mandate to offer equal opportunities to women through affirmitive action."

So my girlfriend sent me this video then she shared a poster she picked up from a WhatsApp status asking what I thought of it. The poster was about a planned marched aimed to force the SABC to reinstate Khaya Angel. This was meant to be my response to it. I really hope it is in the good side of history.

As always, your comments are appreciated

<script data-ad-client="ca-pub-1945240122822914" async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

African or Black: What Race are you?

While discussing the issue of black and white peices in Chess and the significance of the colours of the forces being such opposites, my friend and I agreed that it is necessary for this "war-game" that the enemy forces are easily identifiable as such- opposites-enemies.
Our discussion ended up leading us to wonder how we Africans ever came to be known as black people while our erstwhile counter-parts (colonisers) came to be known as whites. Black and white being stark opposites like darkness and light: one is identified with good while the other with bad; the one is identified with cleanliness while the other with dirt. It has been suggested by some philosophers (St. Augustine) while elaborating on how evil does not exist as it is merely an absence of good, he used the example of darkness being merely the absence of light. Thus suggesting that darkness is a none-thing, it is light which is an actual reality and darkness signifying its lack. A similar claim is made in science where it is stated that light is an energy and it is measurable while darkness cannot be traced and only exists in the absence of light. How is it then that Africans became known as black people and caucasions known as white people? Is it possible that we were so-called just for the purpose of setting us apart from the colonial rulers at the time? Is it possible that our colonisers were responsible for the "black" label that became attached to us to sort of signify that we are nothing without them?
I wonder if there was a time in history just before colonisation that Africans were just that, Africans or rather identified using their tribes?

I remember in Shakespearean literature, characters of African descent were referred to as moors, particularily in Othello where Othello himself is labelled a "moor". Even in the Shakespearean play we can sense that this is neither an affectionate nor an endearing term used to regard the race, it is filled so much with "otherness" and rather used to highlight differences than to appreaciate the other. Quoting act 1, scene 1, line 99 as Lago addresses Brabantio, Desdimona's father regarding Desdimona and Othello's affair:

3	I,1,99	Iago. 'Zounds, sir, you're robb'd; for shame, put on your gown; Your heart is burst, you have lost half your soul; Even now, now, very now, an old black ram Is topping your white ewe. Arise, arise; Awake the snorting citizens with the bell, Or else the devil will make a grandsire of you: Arise, I say.

 We also learn further that the term "moor" was mainly reserved for the non-caucasions espeacially those that ruled Spain and Portugal between the years 700AD and 1400. The moors refered to included various groups of African and Arab nationalities who were Muslim by faith  and were largely responsible for the civilisation of Europe bringing in infrastructural development and sanitanion "Their significant contributions in mathematics, astronomy, art, and agriculture helped propel Europe out of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance. " (AfricanHolocaust.net)
The moors brought Europe out of the dark ages by bringing enlightenment in Sciensce, Mathematics, Art and commerce but I doubt those sentiments are captured in the term "moor". In fact it is said that the term is derogatory in nature and as such, the people referred to as Moors never used the term in referring to themselves in their own literature (which conveniently enough is very limited).

We also learn that in the 16 Century a new word originating from the Latin word for "black" is used to refer to people of African descent: that word is nigger and it has, and still is up to this point, been regarded as the most derogatory term to use especially to refer to "black" people. In light of this, it is quite absurd that we would be offended when referred to as "black" only when it is said in a different language but be okay with it when it is said in the English language. Are we against the Latin language or the colour (label) black?

Growing up I used to think we were called black people because we had a really dark skin tone and thus we were so labelled in referrence to our skin colour. I have grown to learn that such cannot be the case since the people referred to as black range from the darkest of skin tones to the lightest, and almost pale, skin tones. Also, the dark skin tone is not necessarilly reserved for Africans, it is also found in other nationalities such as the Indians and other Asian nationalities but they are not referred to as "black" people (except in South Africa where, since apartheid, black means non-white). The hair colour cannot be the reason either because people with black hair are found the world over. Could it be then that our continent, Africa,  is considered a "Dark" continent: Unenlightened and still stuck in the dark ages? Or is it that the inhabitants of the African continent are so powerless that they cannot even control what labels are put on them by those controlling their resourses?

I fail to understand the contestation against "black" people being refered to as Africans given that the people living in Asia are Asians, those in America are Americans, those in Europe are Europeans and can all be racially identified (or classified). Even more to the point, those from India are Indians and those from Japan are Japanesse etc. and when one speaks of a Japanesse, we have an idea of the people referred to without conjuring up any negative stereo-types associated to the race.

So I ask, why are we okay being referred to as "black" people knowing the negativity associated with the colour black especially since it means "nigger" in Latin? Are we not Africans? I believe the term "black" as used to refer to the people of African descent should be met with the same contempt when used in English as when used in Latin.
We cannot as a people be accepting to being defined and labelled by our lack or by any lack whatsoever. We also cannot accept being labelled by a singular trait found in  some of us as it cannot define our whole race. We are not "black" people for any reason whatsoever, we are African. The claim that there are other races that are at home in Africa cannot hold as an objection to us being referred to as Africans, they too can be referred to as European-Africans or Asian-African just as our brothers and sisters of African descent found in other continents are known as African-America or African-Europeans for example. A Tsonga man is not a black man, he is an African man from the Tsonga tribe and calling him "black" ought to be considered derogatory. It is better when your label traces your origins and embodies your history rather than it becoming an insult. This "black" label as used on African people is tantamount to calling an extremely dark person "m'nyamane"  or "Blackie" as we used to call black dogs as kids and it should be frowned upon.
That is just my view, it would be interesting hearing what you think.

<script data-ad-client="ca-pub-1945240122822914" async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

Some references

 http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/characters/charlines.php?CharID=brabantio&WorkID=othello&cues=1

https://africanholocaust.net/moors-black-history-or-black-mythology/