BY THE time you read this, the High Court in Durban would have decided on a landmark case. Animal Rights Africa took the Zulu King to court over an aspect of a ceremony called ukweshwama.
The ceremony is conducted in December to thank God and the ancestors for the first fruits. It involves a ritual where a group of young men kill a bull with their bare hands. The activists say this is barbaric.
Obviously, none of those in the ARA are Zulu. Otherwise they would have known this has been done for more than a century. The animal rights activists say that animals have feelings too and have a right to be slaughtered humanely. Why now, or am I missing something here? The bull still dies whether it’s strung by its balls, or serenaded to death.
What offends many traditionalists is that this is the same argument that was used when Europeans colonised Africa. Seeing that as long as they stuck to their traditional ways, there was no way they could be defeated. So a concerted strategy was employed to eat away at the base of their power which was their culture and tradition. These were labelled as “barbaric”. Haven’t we been here before?
God created people in their diversity so as to eliminate monotony. Imagine how colourless and boring it would be if we all thought alike, behaved and dressed the same or even ate the same food?
The word exotic would not be part of the dictionary and the variety that languages bring would not be there. There is nothing more entertaining than watching people speaking in a strange language, and doing things differently.
Now let us cut to the chase, what is more barbaric, bullfighting in Pamplona Spain or what happens in this other South American backwater where 3,000 beasts are slaughtered in a single festival?
The Romans tossed people among lions for entertainment. There other examples too numerous to mention that I can quote from the western “civilisations”. I can hear those who are pro-ARA saying that a bad practice cannot be defended, just because it’s been done for centuries.
The problem is that they don’t get it. It’s not about putting a bull out of its misery for the braai stand but it’s about the Zulu identity as much as it would be for the Scots if haggis were banned because it made them appear like vampires!
This whole issue points to one thing: ignorance. The people at Animal Rights Africa, who I presume are white, should have sat down with Inkosi yamakhosi and learnt a bit about the origins and the significance of ukweshwama.
But no, what do they do? They rush to the courts before you can spell “court injunction” if only to gain maximum mileage for their funders and make the barbarians appear, eh, more barbaric.
By the look of things, it seems that the High Court is in a dilemma of sorts. It reserved its judgement at the first hearing because it felt that ARA had not exhausted all the channels before coming to court.
There was the Council of Traditional Affairs to consult and maybe the Cow Rights Commission. Such is the make-up of a democratic state. Even cockroaches have rights mind you, not to mention those representing the poor youth who would have to conduct the ghastly deed. No-one asked their opinion in all this.
One is even tempted to think that the activists would have preferred the studs to go for a full grown male lion if it was a case of displaying bravery.
Taken in another context, I must confess that I enjoy my traditional plate of steaming mangqina or mazondo (cow hooves.) If I cook the horns and the hide as a side dish, that is my damn business.
Who am I to make noise over the Chinese relishing marinated dog and or grilled snake or the French having a thing for snail soup or fried frog’s legs? One man’s meat is another man’s poison. It’s called culture and let sleeping bulls die, to be eaten futhi.
Will lunch break be history?
Talking about issues related to eating, an Italian government minister has proposed that lunch break be banned. I know that politicians have very little to do, but what beats me is that it had to come to this.
Wait for it, he even goes on to say that the reason behind this breathtakingly stupid suggestion is that it reduces productivity and that “the whole country comes to a standstill”!
Methinks it’s his brain functions that have come to a standstill.
I laughed so loud when I came across this until I realised that that this guy was serious and that he could dredge along a sizeable number of likeminded (read dim-witted) sympathisers in governments across the globe. The reaction from the Italian trade union was telling when they wondered whether the minister ever worked in his life.
Those of us who have put in more than our share of sweat in salt mines across the world will attest to the importance of the lunch break. After being overworked, terrorised, humiliated, abused and battered for the better part of the morning, we need to be given time out to collect ourselves together as it were.
What will be illustrative is the fact that the very people who put us through hell (read bosses) are the ones that abuse lunch breaks. They will take extended versions of the break to indulge in what we call the liquid lunch. Chances are high that they are unlikely to return to work, leaving some poor serf to take the boss’s jacket to the club where he would way past round ten.
What will become of the infamous office quickie? Let me not go there suffice to say that it would force some Casanovas to opt for unsavoury venues for their sordid trysts. The office toilet comes to mind, what of the broom cupboard or worse still the car parked in some foreboding thicket?
We would also see a reduction of office babies carrying such ridiculous names such as Desktop, Clipper Copier or even carpet! I have already said too much.
Banning lunch break will help reduce the number of people we see sprawled on park lawns. Contrary to popular belief, they are not the unemployed passing the day by snoozing on the grass. They are actually workers catching up on sleeping opportunities denied at the office.
Show me a sleeping pill that surpasses a staff meeting? If the persistent drone of the boss praising himself doesn’t lull you to slumber, the agenda certainly will knock you out!
However, if you treasure your job, you wouldn’t want to be caught catching forty winks, would you? So lunch hour is a Godsend in this regard.
Back in Italy, the leader of the trade union had the last word. He was quoted as saying that if the government were considering doing away with lunch breaks, while they were at it, why don’t they ban the annoying habit of sleep?
