From: shaze@cs.ubc.ca (Scott Hazelhurst)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: Cultural Exclusivity
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:24:53 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: tolmie.cs.ubc.ca

pmmst8+@pitt.edu (Paul M Mweene) writes:
>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

The problem with this answer is that it assumes that there is someone
who can be appealed to as the supreme guardian of a culture. It's
all very well to say that Buthelexi is not credible (BTW, does this
mean that you write off King Goodwill Zwelithini as well?) but
who is. I am sure that you regard yourself as credible but I have
confidence that lots of people wouldn't. But let's hypothetically
put you in charge of the "culture desk" (hypothetically!). What
criteria do you use to say that Ibo and Zulu culture are closer
than, say, the culture of white Afrikaans speakers and black
Afrikaans speakers, or white Afrikaans speakers and black Zulu
speakers? If there are some objective criteria it would be
interesting to hear? If they are purely subjective what makes
them better than anyone else's (MG Buthelezi's for example).

Then Paul Mweene says:
>centers around the ego and maniacal ambitions of the mad slave trader MG Buthe
>lezi, that wimp and butt licker of the boers.i

_Wimp_?
 There are lots of bad things that can be said about Buthelezi,
but I have _never_ heard of anyone call him a wimp. I have great
difficulty in taking seriously anyone who calls Buthelezi a wimp.

>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.

My questions tried to understand what the role of culture in 
society is. Too many unscrupulous politicians all over the world
use culture to stimulate racism to bolster their position.
Culture can be used as both a negative and positive tool. In all
culture there are some positive aspects and some negative aspects.
All societies, and South Africa in particular, have to deal with 
a number of heterogenous cultures (with differing levels of
differences) and I am trying to focus on how these cultures
can coexist and build each other, and that is why I ask who can
debate issues of culture.

The issue of fundamental causes of problems is an important one.
If you wish to discuss it, start up another thread.


>>
>>Scott
>>Yet another melanin-disadvantaged South African
> what a naive statement. In what way is a white South African disadvantaged? 

I'll repeat this slowly for you (although as a rule one should never
repeat weak jokes) 

Melanin-disadvantaged = not enough melanin 
If you still don't understand, I suggest looking up "melanin" and
"disadvantage" in a dictionary



Scott
(Flamed, but still melanin-disadvantaged)
-- 
---shaze@cs.ubc.ca----------------------------------------------------------
   Scott Hazelhurst