From: pmmst8+@pitt.edu (Paul M Mweene)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: Cultural Exclusivity
Date: 7 Nov 92 20:20:32 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1dfc6bINNnd0@pacific.cs.ubc.ca> shaze@cs.ubc.ca (Scott Hazelhurst) writes:
>However, the issue is one which is one of the key political
>issues in South Africa at the moment - "cultural weapons".
>The ANC (amongst many many others have been calling for 
>the carrying of _all_ weapons in public to be outlawed
>(and the laws be enforced). Chief Buthelezi has been arguing
>quite strongly that the purpose of this is to destroy
>Zulu culture, and that it is the right of every Zulu man
>to carry his cultural weapons. King Goodwill has also 
>supported this.

You ignore several relevant facts. Buthelezi is not a credible example of moral
ity. If spears, knobkerries and cowhide shields are the symbols of Zulu culture
, then Zulu culture is exactly the same is Shona, Tswana, Masai, Ibo, Mandingo
and XHOSA culture. And in fact, especially in the latter case, it is. In most
cases it is just a variation of the same theme. Much the same way that English
and Welsh culture are to each other. How ever Zulu culture is different from 
Boer or English culture. 	So in an ironic sort of way, Gatsha logic is va
lid in as far as it refers to you.i
 
>So my questions
>(1) Is it true that it is an insult to the Zulu nation to
>    ban the carrying of weapons in public (like marching
>    through the main streets of Johannesburg)

The issue has nothing to do with the Zulsu per se, rather it all emantes from 
centers around the ego and maniacal ambitions of the mad slave trader MG Buthe
lezi, that wimp and butt licker of the boers.i


>(2) If it is true, does this mean that it is wrong to ban
>    the carrying of weapons in public?

My answer, above, rendered this question irrelevant.             
  
>(3) Who can take part in this debate? Only Zulu men? Only
>    Zulus? Only Zulu-speakers? Only the darkest coloured South
>    Africans?

All the people whom the issue impacts on.
.
i> All South Africans except the darkest coloured
>    ones? All South Africans? Only darkest coloured people
>    (including non-South Africans) etc etc.

The most important point which it has been convinient for you to ignore is that
white people caused this and all the problems in South Africa. The white South
African newspapers themselves pointed out that Buthelezi is nothing but the o
ther terror arm of SADF and BOSS.  As they pointed out, he is a 700 million rand
a year project of Boer racism  intended to distract and dilute the impact of th
e progrssive forces in South Africa.  

The problem in South Africa is not the ethnic violence but Apartheid and white
racism. Your questions have deliberately tried to focus on the symptoms rather 
than the cause.

 
>
>Scott
>Yet another melanin-disadvantaged South African
>-- 
 what a naive statement. In what way is a white South African disadvantaged? 
RSA spends 5 times on education for you than for a black person. You pay no
thing for education until matric level where as blacks pay all the way throu
shcool. 

Apartheid though outlawed, continues in practise. White people in S Africa have
a higher standard of living than many white Americans. They certainly have more
guns and servants per person.

You go to segregated schools and enjoy all the priviledges in the world. Even
here on the NET your apartheid is in practise. For more than a year I have ch\
allenged white South Africans to allow 1 (one) black amn to post on the net 
to no avail. 

You have produced the lame claim that blacks don't post because they don't want
to post. This is ridiculous, only those who have something to fear or do not 
posses the right would not post on the net. And of all the countries on the NET
South Africa is especially desposed to put Africans in such a position.

If your position is so disadvantaged why don't you exchange with one black man
I know many who have died (killed) and would die to be in your position.


Makala