Clint Eastwood tries to turn history into mush.
Clint Eastwood presents Mandela as a conciliator and ultimately the exonerater of the supporters of Apartheid. Is Mandela happy with this image?
The reasons why the western media has attacked, and will continue to attack Jacob Zuma, centre around the ridiculous identity politics of the soft left in Britain, hollowed out of all socialism: lacking any coherent philosophy of social justice and brimming with empty-headed market oriented opportunism. The western media approved of Mandela's overly conciliatory beginnings after his release in 1990 and saw its reflection in the policies of Thabo Mbeki's government.
Mandela should speak out against Invictus' distortion of history and reject his over-flattering portrayal, one that reduces the whole of the liberation struggle of the ANC, from the time the ANC was founded in 1912, to the "Christ-like" actions of one individual.
History has plenty of people who made great sacrifices for the liberation of South Africa - people who did not survive the Apartheid regime: Albert lutuli, Bram Fischer, Chris Hani to name 3. There are many "saints" of the liberation movement in South Africa and of the broader liberation movement in Southern Africa.
Hollywood understands celebrity. It composts the the whole of South African struggle into the actions of Mandela. It casts him as a celebrity politician, shorn of all political meaning. It is no coincidence that Morgan Freeman. wanted to play Mandela. This is merely the pestilential vanity of a Hollywood actor, who, like Dorian Grey in reverse, wants to see himself reflected in the mirror of history.
The film is a travesty that turns Mandela into a veritable Jeeves, coming to the aid of the white community's Bertie Wooster and scheming successfully to avoid a "to do" in order to reconcile "senselessly" warring parties.
Invictus drops a few red herrings before it attempts to turn history into mush. It shows pictures of the rioting between Inkatha and the ANC supporters. It hints that the reason why the US and Boers opposed South Africans is merely because of the cold war, because they "mistakenly" classified Mandela as a communist and a terrorist.
Notice no other ANC figures are ever shown in this film. Invictus puts clear water between Mandela and the rest of the ANC. The executive committee of the ANC is shown as a vengeful young rabble in a barn faced down by a great statesman who tries to talk sense into them. This is far from the truth.
But there is something even more repulsive about this Hollywood spin on recent South African history. On behalf of the US and Europe, Hollywood decides that it forgives the white South Africans for Apartheid and uses the figure of Mandela to do so.
Forgiveness is the perrogative of the victims of Apartheid not of its supporters. The US supported Apartheid. While black people were swinging from southern trees in the South Gerard Ludi, in the pay of Boss and (they say) the CIA, betrayed many of the leaders of activists of the ANC into jail.
But then the US continued to support Apartheid. It supported it in the sixties and the seventies. Thatcher supported Apartheid and so did Reagan. The consumers of Hollywood history amongst us forget that the CIA, MI5 and MI6 were bugging ANC office in Penton Street in King's Cross and sharing the information with BOSS agents in the South African embassy.
Who the hell does Clint Eastwood think he is? On whose behalf does Clint Eastwood and Hollywood forgive the former supporters of Apartheid? Certainly not on behalf of the victims of Apartheid.
Back to Jacob Zuma. The "devil" to Mandela's "saint". Let's put to one side the fact that Jacob Zuma was locked up for 15 years on Robben Island, something the western media never mentions: on the 14th of February 1964, (46 years ago tomorrow) Jacob Zuma was jailed on Robben Island. He was released 15 years later in March 1979. Leave to one side the fact that he was working as the head of ANC intelligence for many years actively fighting for the liberation of South Africa while Mandela was still locked up.
Leave all that to one side and understand that Jacob Zuma saved the "Rainbow Nation" from being balkanised by getting Inkatha supporters to vote for the ANC in the early 1990s. Another key player was Mac Maharaj he intervened to stop the Bophuthatswana leader Lucas Mangope being restored by the Apartheid government in 1994. These interventions were more important factors in ending the civil war than the fact that Mandela supported the Springboks, the symbol of apartheid, in a spirit of reconciliation.
What does Clint Eastwood know about South African politics anyway? The film is a simplistic, vacuous feel good movie that distorts history.
In any event all politicians from African countries that show a conciliatory attitude to settler populations are always lionised in the European and US press. Mandela is no exception. Why should he or we take seriously the adoration of governments and companies that once supported Apartheid South Africa and vetoed or abstained from approving every sanction proposed against Apartheid South Africa in the UN.
These are the same people who lionise Mandela at the expense of Zuma, the loyal former supporters of the apartheid government, from 1948 to the mid eighties.
If you take these people seriously it proves you have either no historical memory or you have received a historical lobotomy. You are probably the kind of person who got high at Live Aid and thought you were making poverty history by buying a cup of fair trade Ghanaian chocolate produced by child labour.
Kenyatta was a hero of the British for allowing business to carry on as usual after independence in Kenya. Kenyatta was said to have made a deal in Jail with the British before, in a similar fashion, he was released to general acclaim. The independence fighters, the Mao Mao, were side lined just like the Umkhonto we Sizwe fighters were. Most seasoned ANC members were in terror that Mandela would do a deal like Kenyatta. In the end he didn't, he remained a hero, but he signed the IMF letter that committed South Africa to glacial social change and s liberal economic strategy.
Mandela and Trevor Manuel signed the secret deals with the IMF to commit South Africa to market oriented policies at the expense of reconstruction. What was needed was something along the lines of what happened after German reunification.
The rich white part of the country bejewelled with swimming pools and luxury homes should have taken the tax hit and contributed to the reconstruction of the rest of the country - contributed to righting the unequal and "separate development" of South Africa they had once propitiated and defended through terror, murder, torture and institutional prejudice.
The international corporates, and South African companies directly responsible for inequality during the time of Apartheid, instead of threatening the ANC government with the withdrawal of their support, should have been made to contribute to the reconstruction of the other, underdeveloped side of South Africa. They refused to do so point blank and held Mandela and the ANC to ransom and Mandela and the ANC caved in.
Instead, Mandela agreed to hold the status quo and Thabo Mbeki, who followed him into power, continued with extreme market oriented policies leaving most South Africans in dire poverty - unnecessarily. The IMF letter and MBEKI's GEAR strategy are two clear illustrations that the first ANC government was in the pocket of the corporates and foreign powers.
The only mainstream politician who spoke out clearly against the market oriented policies that of Mandela and Thabo Mbeki was Jacob Zuma. The ANC renewed itself, shook off Mbeki and supported Zuma, the people supported Zuma, even Mandela supported Zuma and that is why he was elected president of South Africa.
Comments
Post a Comment