UB,
If anything, getting you to spend valuable thesis time to respond on this forum is an achievement on the part of my email. I think you often withold your razor intellect because there no arguments on offer to slice through, and so I am pleased at getting some response. And on the topic of tone and my poor knowledge of Adekeye, I apologise if it has gone beyond the bounds of what one might rationally have understood from his article. Naturally, I would have preferred to debate the topic with the man in person.
Personal matters aside, you have made some interesting points while informing us of the debate that has gone on before the Mandela-Rhodes formation. I had no idea about the debate and from Adekeye's article it is clear he had no idea either. I would like however to focus on the reconcilaition-revenge dichotomy and my lack of understanding regarding concepts of justice. Although I think with clearer explanations of our viewpoints we will probably be largely in agreement.
I made it clear that I had no qualms about recognising the harm caused by Rhodes as his violent legacy and his exploitation cannot be fully excused by any argument. I believe we should recognise this legacy for what it is instead of trying to soften it as some in the Rhodes community would have it.
But lets get to the point. How does one address Rhodes ' legacy and that of colonialism today? And does the partnering of Mandela's name to that of Rhodes represent a condoning of the arch-imperialist's legacy?
On the first point, how to address South Africa 's racist and unjust past the answer is short, simple to say but nearly impossible to achieve in reality. I will cheat by using the constitutional introduction highlighted by Sasha:
"We, the people of South Africa ,
Recognise the injustices of our past;
Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land;
Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and
Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity."
Recognise the past. Focus on the future. Does this happen in reality? The only instance I know of where it has worked is in Mandela. He has absorbed this ideal into his own image, becoming himself the change he wishes to see in the world (Thank you Mahatma Ghandi). Adekeye decided to choose Zimbabwe and Zambia as examples of a different kind of dealing with past. Is it coincidence that these two countries are the basket-cases of southern africa ? Criticise all you like the extent to which transformation and reconciliation has been achieved in South Africa in general but there is something fundamentally different about the results achieved by Mandela's way. Although Adeyeke's view refers to a small part of history (ie the lives of two leaders), broader world history is littered with eye-for-an-eye battles that never discover reconciliation. In these examples from history, who is right and wrong become increasingly irrelevant concepts. What would constitute justice in the middle east for example? Mandela hasn't been concerned with justice. Even though he, personally, has the right to to retribution but has never made any case for it. And so here concludes my argument on Mandela: Mandela has sought to embody the philosophy of transformation, using his gift of leadership and his image to steer us away from the destructive practice of seeking justice from the past.
Has he gone too far in following this ideal by partnering with Cecil? I challenge you to convince us that Mandela's intention was to soften the legacy of Rhodes - the thought to me is absurd. How could any rational person believe that Mandela condones the actions of Rhodes ? Clearly Mandela had another purpose in mind by agreeing to the partnership. He sees no need to deliver a judgement upon the past because as I have argued, it is irrelevant and unhelpful. Instead he sees an opportunity to reform the Rhodes scholarship and build a new legacy, continuing to transform our country through his embodiment of change.
So, to conclude, Rhodes ' practises were clearly unsavoury and downright unjust. But to suggest that Mandela was intending to soften that legacy or that nyone might believe Mandela is condoning rampant racism and exploitation is beyond reason. (Am I still trivialising the debate?) Mandela has continued to show a kind of transformational leadership that few understand and almost none are able to match. I think Adekeye's article misses the entire point and even with your capable help, the arguments Adekeye presents are not of the calibre I would expect of someone in his position. Your arguments on concepts of justice I accept but even they cannot resurrect his outrageous suggestion of a Zimbabwe or Zambia style view of our colonial history.
Regards,
Dom.