1976 Revisited

We all know that 1976 was the year that the Soweto uprisings started. The children, or as they are now known ‘learners’ (where on earth did that word come from?), refused to take instruction in Afrikaans. That was the start of the trouble.

Well, here we are in 2009 and those of us who speak what used once upon a time to be known as English, are now being subjected to similar and equally demeaning treatment – only that to which we are being subjected is more subtle, more insidious.

SABC TV’s channel no 3 has traditionally been reserved for English; from time to time there have been some fairly horrendous mistakes in pronunciation (but then you have to expect that when most of our continuity announcers come from another language background), and there have been a few times when programming left much to be desired. We have borne all those things with a certain amount of equanimity; after all, you can always turn off the TV if it gets too much or too bad.

However, in the last two weeks a new and worrying trend has, silently and almost imperceptibly, appeared. On Thursday nights we are now being treated to a really awful piece of programming entirely in (you guessed it) Afrikaans, and on Fridays we have the slightly more palatable De Kat (also in Afrikaans).

I would assume, therefore, that channel no 3 is no longer exclusively in English.
Come all you payers of licences and critics of the SABC, gird your loins, pluck up your courage, and in true South African fashion, lets burn down every government building we can find; lets lay waste to every school, every electrical appliance shop; lets turn over every police vehicle and march against the guns of the SABC. We have as much right to our language and heritage as those who demonstrated against Afrikaans in 1976!!!

Our rights are being violated. In popular terminology, we are ‘suffering’. Our language, our heritage, our very culture is being assaulted and belittled by those very people who found the enforced teaching in Afrikaans so unsavoury. We have a major bus strike in Johannesburg, the threat of a nation-wide strike of doctors, taxi operators threatening hellfire and brimstone if the bus rapid-transport system is introduced, political figures shouting unpleasant and defamatory epithets at our new administrator of the Cape (Helen Zille), and threats of legal action because a certain body does not recognise her right to choose her own cabinet as she sees fit – so lets do our bit and demonstrate against those in power at Auckland Park who see fit to quietly drop the occasional Afrikaans programme into our hallowed English station. GO GET THEM – VRYSTAAT!!

Euthanasia - Let's Have the Conversation

This morning (15/05/2009) there was a very interesting programme on SABC about this, and I can’t help but feel that the programme only scratched the surface of this fascinating question. Of course, there are good reasons both for and against this, and let me say at the outset that voluntary euthanasia, if it were made legal in this country, could be abused. But then so can most laws be abused if one really wants to find a way….

I think that the strongest argument in favour of this is the one postulated by one of the callers: if we can make an educated decision in favour of euthanizing a favourite pet, then why can’t the same benefit be offered to a human being – a relative, a friend, one who is dear to us? In the case of a pet, we are often called upon to make a very hard decision – hard for us because it means the final end of our relationship with that pet.
Normally we would be guided in this instance by the vet, who would be able to tell us what the chances are for that animal to make a full recovery. We weigh the chances against the expense (because veterinary treatment is expensive) and we make, sometimes reluctantly, a decision.

Why do we not look upon people in the same way? Let me give you an example:
Recently my favourite cat was diagnosed with a potentially life-threatening disease and so, at considerable expense I had him treated because he was still young, and if he could survive he could still look forward to a full lifetime of fun a games in his own feline way. He underwent the treatment and came out of it somewhat better, but not quite the cat that he had been. I only had him back at home for ten days when he started going downhill again and, after taking him back to the vet for further investigation and treatment, I was told that even if he survived a fresh round of expense and suffering, he would never really be able to live a normal life and would have to he under constant care and supervision. I had no choice but to have him put to sleep (as we say). For those of you who have never been this route, it is impossible to explain the angst and soul-searching that this decision puts upon us, and the pain of final separation; but it has to be off-set against the animal’s future. We cannot make a decision based on our own wishes or needs; we have to put the animal first.

My mother, on the other hand, had been diagnosed with breast cancer some years previous to her death. She had continued to live a normal life, undergoing regular check-ups and treatments, and was quite happy, but, knowing what she did as a qualified nurse, she must have known what the final outcome would be. It was made clear to me when she left the day-clinic after one of her check-ups clutching a bottle of morphine solution. In the last months of her life she gradually became weaker and less interested in her surroundings, to the point, where, finally, she was bed-ridden and unable to attend to even her most basic functions. I know how much she hated this, and how pointless she considered the whole exercise to be, because she knew that it could only end in death. On several occasions I looked at the stock of morphine tablets, the bottle of solution, and I asked myself should I put an end to her suffering. If she had been a cat or a dog, I would have done just that; but because she was a human being, I went to every length I could to delay her final demise. Money evaporated like butter against the sun; helpers came to the house and massaged her, dressed her bedsores, chatted to her, while I ran up and down the passage with vomit-bowls and various medications – all of which did little to alleviate her suffering. She was not in great pain, but she must have felt all alone as she faced inevitable death. On several occasions she actually asked me to put an end to her suffering, but I couldn’t.

She ended her life in a nursing home, unable even to turn herself, unaware for a lot of the time of her surroundings, at times unable to recognise me when I visited; it was not a life, nor was it a death. It was something worse, because all she had were her thoughts and fears, her knowledge that sooner or later she would have to cross the threshold into the unknown – and I’m sure she must have thought about it a lot and wondered what lay ahead. Not being a particularly religious person, she was unable to appeal to her God for help; she had only herself.

I often think that the pain and suffering she went through, and the agonies of doubt and fear of loss that I suffered, could so easily have been avoided by the simple administration of a few pills. I would have done it without hesitation for a pet, but I could not do it for her.

I can only hope that when I become terminal, bed-ridden, useless, and alone with my thoughts, someone will be kind enough to slip me an overdose and let me drift peacefully away; that I shall be spared the mental anguish of remembering what life used to be like and off-setting it against the now, and shall be spared the suffering I would go through, as well as seeing the looks of hopelessness or feigned jollity on the faces of my visitors.

We tend to be kind to animals but seldom ever to people because our whole culture, our upbringing, tells us that everyone has the right to life. But surely, whoever thought that one out didn’t mean life in its barest, clinical form, but life as it should be lived.

When we are told that a mother or father, a spouse, a loved-one, has no chance of recovery and can only look forward to a constant downhill struggle like this, even if it does not involve a great deal of physical pain, do we not have the right to allow them to die with dignity? Is it not an act of supreme selfishness that we keep them alive at all costs simply because we are afraid of the final moment of parting? This is surely an instance where we should put their interests above our own, and where we should be able to do so legally and without fear of reprisal.

In my mother’s final weeks, I prayed for death as keenly as she must have done. Each day became yet another treadmill which had to be faced, another uncertainty, another worry, and there was no hope of any pleasant outcome.

Let us put criminals aside; as I said at the beginning, all laws can be abused in one way or another, and this law would be no exception. Yet it is illegal to kill another person in any way at the moment, so there would effectively be no change; the criminal would only need to fear that his act would be found out and that he would be made to pay the price.
But surely, someone who, with love and kindness, administered the overdose, or disconnected the life-support systems, can hardly be regarded as a murderer? Are they not acting in the best interests of the patient and doing what the patient most wants them to do?

I will leave you with a snippet of poetry which my mother used to quote when she knew the end was inevitable:

“Darkling I listen; and, for many a time
I have been half in love with easeful Death,
Call’d him soft names in many a mused rhyme,
To take into the air my quiet breath;
Now more than ever seems it rich to die,
To cease upon the midnight with no pain…….”

(Keats; Ode to a Nightingale)

The Zuma Inauguration

I swore that I wouldn't listen to the radio or watch this spectacle on TV because I am heartily sick of the fanfare and noise that this whole thing has caused in this country. However, I was amused to read just now that the whole thing was marred by a downpour of rain, causing all the hallowed guests to run for cover. Serves them all right!!
One thing, however, has to be said: the stupendous amount of money that has been lavished on this ceremony leaves one speechless. For a humble man who was voted into power by the great unwashed masses of this country, Zuma has excelled himself in hypocrisy; whilst his supporters take shelter in their shacks, watching this amazing sight on their TVs (very often stolen), powered by electricity which is illegally re-routed from legal connections, they are no doubt cheering and drinking the health of the new president.
However, they would not know the taste of French Champagne at R100+- per bottle; theirs will be a diet of Black Label or cheap whisky. They are unconcerned that the cost of such an undertaking would have provided them with many many homes, or could have been used to good ends in elevating the poor. No, for some reason they regard Zuma as some kind of hero, to be addressed only as "Comrade". I rather fear that they may receive their just desserts when he drives his new administration into top gear and forgets all those who voted for him.
It is interesting to note, also, that while South Africa has taken a 'holier than thou' attitude to King Mswati of Swaziland and has banned him from receiving any of the good things of this country, someone like Mugabe, whose litany of human rights abuse can never be covered by a simple article like this one, has been present at this 'do'. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Women and Child Abuse

A great deal is always said on the radio and on TV about the abuse of women and children in this country, and many talking heads have a great deal to say. However, it seems to me that they are missing one of the main elements of this problem: the content of programmes to which we, the viewing and listening public, are subjected.

It is a known fact that alcohol is one of the main factors causing this abuse and it is widely accepted that our per capita consumption of alcohol in this country is the highest in the world. Why then do we allow alcohol to be freely advertised in both media? We have succeeded in banning all tobacco adverts, and other such harmful substances, but we continue to be assailed with all manner of adverts for beers, brandies, whiskies, and the like.

The content of our TV programmes is, I feel, also very much to blame. We are given a diet of unleavened violence on E-TV (wrestling, third-rate Hollywood movies) and are daily battered with appalling sitcoms on all channels. Most of our stations preface their broadcasts with a warning that children should only watch under adult supervision, or that the following programme contains bad language, violence, explicit sex, or may be offensive to some viewers, but I doubt that anyone ever reads or takes notice of these warnings. If this were the case, then most of our programmes would never be aired. I would further suggest that all political broadcasts, especially those containing shots of JZ badly singing his Umshini Wami song, or dancing foolishly in front of a microphone, should also bear the warning that the following programme may contain content which is offensive to some viewers. I think this sort of thing is offensive to most of us!!

So, people, lets clean up our act and see where the real causes of the problem lie.