Mad Man's Blog

Mad Man June 14th 2010

The recent controversy over the prevalence of the ‘vuvuvzela’s’ and attempts by some to ban them at the current World Cup in South Africa, serves to condense the attitudes, and allocation, of the nation of ‘South Africa’ in the global consciousness. On one hand, the trumpets should be banned, because they are annoying, noisy nuisances, that destroy the atmosphere of ‘traditional’ football games complete with songs, chants, Mexican waves and the like. On the other hand, there are those that defend them as being ‘deeply ingrained’ in the culture of South Africa. Despite the affect they have, which is to the detriment of most of the World’s expectation of a football matches atmosphere, they remain. But then again, this should not surprise us. Because we are not permitted to have a serious debate (as serious as we can be about a noisy trumpet that sounds like a horde of angered hornets!) about how South Africa runs things in this World Cup (despite it being a global event). We are not permitted to say much in the way of criticism at all, not that much can be levelled against it. Because we are intent on keeping South Africa as our special ‘Rainbow nation’ and as well meaning as this sentiment is, it marks the allocation of South Africa a special place in the global space, as an unreal entity, that is imposed externally upon it, not naturally generated . South Africa was given the World Cup because of this sentiment, many argue. But ultimately, South Africa is held back by it. Is it a politically correct form of inverse racism? Or is it simply the case that South Africa is not permitted to be ‘just another nation’.

From the almost embarrassing idolatry of Mandela, the self parody of the opening ceremony, we saw where we were at, the South African’s themselves felt the need to play on Western stereotypes. South Africa has the right of any other nation to host the finals, they have the money (which is argued by some could have been better spent, but again, what right have we to ask this, even if true? Is South Africa not permitted to waste its money as Britain is on the Olympics?) we have the spectacular settings, and they have built great stadiums. But are they are FIFA’S token Africa’s host? Probably, but again, they need not be. On one hand, there is the unreal image of a nation of racial harmony having overcome apartheid, which we know is not the case entirely. Yet South Africa has made important strides forward as a Nation. But how patronising is it to give these successes (that many argue have not gone far enough) a pat on the head? The logic of rich patronage of the poor, is replicated once again it seems.















We should be cautious to sum up this sentiment as a kind of ‘inverse racism’. There is almost nothing racist about it, on first viewing. But the ‘extra’ element that goes alongside the usual world cup coverage, is telling. We know that this is Africa’s first World Cup. But is it, as President Zuma said, ‘Africa’s World Cup’ or, is this South Africa’s alone? The difficulty is that Zuma undoubtedly, in wanting to present the clearest image possible, fell for the Western logic, of the fantasy of all Africa feeling that they had been given a gift from the rich, guilty white man, and the ignorance of the diversity of Africa, that because Africa is predominantly a Black continent, then all black African’s could share in the celebrations. The idea is a remnant of the notion of pan Africanism, that all African’s had a shared identity, smashed into artificial nations by the White Man and must be restored. Yet let us compare the Continent with Europe. The ethnic, religious, and linguistic variation are as diverse as Europe (if not more so). The ‘difference’ of African identity is not permitted here, why can’t Ghana want to win for Ghana alone, not for all Africa? Do South African’s share a common identity with the people of Nigeria? Despite the distance of the two countries being far greater than Germany from Spain, for example, and yet, a victory for Germany, is a victory for Germany alone, not ‘all Europe’. Of course, we once more must be wary of the trap, if Africa wants to identify itself as a singular ‘continental identity’ an identity that surpasses local or national identities, then why not? This might be highly commendable, especially for those of us who seek the good European identity. What could be more Eurocentric that the assumptions that African’s should follow the European model of divisive identity? There is no problem here, as long as the desire is organic, or as organic as it can be, and not the conformity of Africa to a Western imposition of the ‘Fantasy of Africa.’

South Africa can be portrayed as the land of choirs, safari, and Mandela, but on the other extreme there is the effort to shatter this illusion, as being simply a Western imposition, which goes too far. South Africa has its own self promoted stereotype, as do most other nations. But there is a well meaning, but still patronising effort, to uncover the ‘truth’ of South Africa, as the complete inverse of the stereotype, a land of crime, drugs and division, in need of help, not a World Cup. Even if there are truths in this effort, the effort itself, exposes the same logic of allocation, that South Africa is a ‘special case’ that allows us to see the potential of humanity (negative this time) in its naked sense. This effort, is to deny South Africa the possibility of being just another country. Is it not the case that South Africa’s position on the African continent is due to its acceptance of the great ‘second colonization’ of late capitalism? For it is still a colony of sorts, and is seen to be better for it. A colony of liberal capitalism of course, in contrast to its ‘savage’ neighbours (such as neighbouring Zimbabwe) and, because of its embrace of the West, this is what truly makes South Africa at last worthy of hosting the World Cup. Of course, we must be careful not to fall into the trap yet again, of double standards, South Africa is a colony of capitalism in the same way that Britain or America is, and has as much right to be one as do those nations. But the real barrier that South Africa still needs to shatter, on the evidence of the World Cup, is this ability the West seems to possess, to ‘sum it up’ so succulently as it thinks it can. South Africa needs to be allowed to enter the global space on it’s own terms, complete with it‘s imperfections and contradictions. To be able to be criticized for making errors, just like any other nation, for example, to allow us to ask for the banning of annoying vuvuzela’s, instead of supporting them out of deeply held politically correct sentiments!