Skip to main content

Your world is not the same as all others.

The problem with the broader world is we judge people of different lands by our own land's norms. In precolonial Africa, many crimes were punished by just a spear to the gut. No reform in jail. If you break a law, you have to flee the land or be killed. Today, such punishment is illegal in South Africa but we won't judge our forefathers for they lived in a different time despite them being known murderers. Muslims & Jews are homophobic by default because of their holy scripture. Now, if we say they must be inclusive towards homosexuals, to them that's being sinful & against their faith. 

Some societies are extremely promiscuous & it's the (controversial) norm. Religious & developed countries might look at this behaviour of promiscuity & think it's degenerate behavior. We live in different lands, worlds, ideologies & cultures... we are not all alike.

We live in different worlds but globalisation has made us concern ourselves with matters of foreign lands. I don't think this is healthy behaviour. There's being your "brother's keeper" & just being nosy. If you don't concern yourself with your cousin's matters, why bother with the matters of people of different races & ethnicities? Many people don't care about the matters of their distant family & cousins... many focus on their mother, father & siblings. The globalised world is strange in that it often forces you to forsake matters in your proximity & focus on matters hundreds of miles away. This causes many a culture clash because of either religion or way of life. 

The Cold War was a time of proxy wars where the USA was trying to stop communism & the USSR was trying to defend it. This Cold War proxy war period caused the:- 
• Angolan War in which Apartheid South Africa was sent fleeing, 
• the splitting of Korea into north & south, 
• east & west Germany tensions, 
• many African leaders being killed, namely: Patrice Lumumba, Thomas Sankara, Eduardo Mondlane & Samora Machel who were all leftists & lastly, 
• the Cuban Missile Crisis which almost ended the world. 
All the above listed events because the U. S. A. felt threatened by a political ideology thousands of kilometres away. 

How you view a foreign land is not necessarily how that land views themselves. This goes for other people in general also. What is success to you is not success to others. What is failure to other nations may not seem like failure to you. For example, other African lands that managed to decolonise might see South Africa's multiracialism & multiculturalism as a failure. I've heard of Somalians imply that black South Africans are stupid for letting whites rule their land when among black South Africans multiracialism is not so much a failure. If Somalians were as nosy as some Western lands, they'd fund black nationalists to destroy white infrastructure & coordinate planned massacres of whites. But none of this has happened yet because Somalians still largely mind their own business despite their political views on South Africa. There's a danger in judging people without understanding the world they live in & their background but at the same time, we can't excuse deviance & corruption in our own world.

I think I've blogged this before but globalisation & concerning ourselves with other people's matters & general business is causing more harm & conflict than it's worth. I think keeping regional stability is good for a country but there's no need for you to concern yourself with the Russo-Ukranian War & Israeli-Gaza conflict living in Johannesburg. Our prime concern in South Africa is SADC & issues that directly affect us. Knowing how to prioritise things is important. The terrorists & extremists in northern Mozambique are of more urgent concern than M23 in the D. R. Congo. 

Before we get to invested in things, we need to question if they directly affect us & how much of a threat they really are. It makes no sense using an assault rifle to kill a fly. If countries & people would learn this simple concept of focusing on matters that directly affect them, there'd be a lot less conflict in the world because your world is not the same as all others.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The problem with a single African currency.

Preword: It's funny because one of the main reasons I found the courage to blog on African matters was due to a West African(?) gentleman who proposed the concept of a said "swal" & "zul" as a continental African currency in a blog. His boldness & conviction in his idea just captivated me & today I have to debunk this idea of his. But, hopefully, Africa sees why. African technologies & financial solutions Oh, Africa. We are so romantic; "United States of Africa", "Single African currency", "African unity", "Ubuntu"... all these fluffy, lovey-dovey concepts that will be ripped to shreds in the globalised world.  I debunked why a United States of Africa would likely collapse as soon as it sees the light of day. Today, I will debunk the concept of a "Single African currency" & explain why it would leave our enemies salivating.  I can't blame people who like stuff like United States of Africa...

A viable single African currency concept.

The original reason why I believe a single African currency would not work. Below is how we could attempt to make it work.  The many currencies of Africa. To prevent destabilization of the continent's economy, there could be two currencies: The Lami  for countries lying mostly north of the equator & the Ng'ombe  for countries mostly south of the equator. Both currencies would be independent with the Lami having it's bank & headquarters in Addis Ababa while the Ng'ombe could have it's bank & headquarters in Nairobi.  N.B.: Gabon, Congo-Brazzaville, DRC & Kenya would use the Ng'ombe currency while Uganda & Somalia would use the Lami currency.  North of equator = Lami  South of equator = Ng'ombe   More stable countries with higher GDP per capita could be first to use the new currencies i.e. Seychelles, Mauritius, Gabon, Botswana, Libya, Equatorial Guinea, South Africa, Algeria, Na...

What did King Shaka look like?

I've heard some people quoting from King Shaka's praises claiming that he was "like the sun" therefore light-skinned. But I'd like to ask how comparisons with the sun equate with being light-skinned? If anything, if King Shaka was light-skinned, they'd compare him to something terrestrial like the colour of a cow hide, wood or other object because very few extraterrestrial objects have the colour of any human skin. Even white people are called "ondlebe zikhanya ilanga" ('those who have translucent ears") & not  "abakhanya okwelanga" ("those who shine like the sun"). King Shaka's mother was from Elangeni & there is the Langa clan in KZN, all of them are black with many being exceptionally dark-skinned so I don't think the comparisons comparing King Shaka with the sun have anything to do with his complexion. Even the whites who first saw him & drew him wrote that he was dark & fairly tall. I also don...