Bontle Ba Monna: The Beauty of a Man

(To my brother, the son of my mother's brother)

(I really did not want to caption this, its just provocative lol)

Recently i was confronted with a saying which  our fathers probably received from their fathers. A saying which speaks to the preconditions of the coming together of two (or more) people. The origin of this saying pre exists us and probably holds more water to those who lived in times way before us than it does today. Notwithstanding, my dear brother, i would be fairly ignorant if i would try and suggest that it holds no sway over us today. We live in developing times. By saying "developing" i speak of a passage of change where in shaping our future we find ourselves having to break away with our past as well. In determining what to keep from our past, do we not therefore have to learn from our experiences? In determining what to break away from our past, do we not have to learn from those who went before us? 

There is a saying we were taught growing up- how 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. What a liberating truth wouldn't you say? I would imagine the rationale behind it is that you need not be apologetic over who you deem to be worthy of your affection. The autonomy of choice is bestowed unto a person with that saying. Do you not see how it presupposes that the factors which dictate why a person would want to be with another person are almost inexplicable? How you as a beholder need not account to anyone concerning your choice of infatuation. Does this mean that there are no reasonable or noticeable factors which a third party could infer or try and insinuate as to what propels you to who you are drawn to? On the contrary, perhaps they may be quite explicit and one may try and even suggest that they are 'obvious'. However, the beauty you see, as the beholder, will remain sacred and forever sealed in your perspective. No matter how much you may try and articulate the cause of your affection and what you as a beholder are beholding- we may truly only come close to what your seeing- you will remain the only one witnessing this beauty. The saying gives you as a beholder carte blanche exclusivity to the beauty you are drawn to.  In its uniqueness, no one is entitled to share in the sight you are seeing. It is because of that, you are well justified in not giving reason when asked as to what exactly motivates your love for another.

Love is irrational- and so, would it not result that we are justified when we make "irrational choices"? Did not the same englishmen tell us that 'love is blind'? Ponder with me.

A conflict arose when i found myself eavesdropping whispers from the elders. An interesting narrative I might add, my brother, I will to do well and grant you the context too. This may not be new to you (as I have mentioned earlier, these saying still hold sway over us). In a conversation concerning expectations she has from a man, she added and said: "Bontle ba monna bo bonagala mo potleng" (loosely translated: the beauty of a man is seen in his pockets). I think it is worth pointing out the contrast against what i mentioned above. Firstly, there is a shift in the yardstick from a subjective to a objective one. The test for beauty is now measured by the wealth of a man. This is to say that the thicker his pocket is, the more aesthetically pleasing the man is. By implication, in this context, what ought to motivate women in choosing or accepting a partner should be the according to the purchasing power the man wields. This is a traditional viewpoint my brother, well encapsulated in the African narrative we are exposed to before we spoke of other narratives: "Ubuhle bendoda iz'nkomo zayo" (loosely translated: the beauty of a man is in his cows). The ability to express financial prowess is said to give you privy to your choicest woman it seems. The effects of the narrative explains the objectification of woman in times past. Man works hard to add to his beauty to accumulate the wealth so he can draw unto himself his choice partner. The objectification in that the unequal balance between you and your partner will be that as seen between an owner and his possession. The narrative puts forth an unequal footing at the point of departure between man and woman. While she is born with her beauty and is to be desired for her natural and intrinsic qualities- she is placed on the shelf of society available to the highest bidder (relatively speaking). You as a man needing to access her companionship, cannot rely on your own natural and intrinsic qualities as a basis for beauty, no, you need to make wealth in order to find aesthetic value in her eyes. 

You are practical, self driven and i would not want to suggest that circumstances do not play a role in finding companionship. It is relative, sentiments will differ from person to person. I am however concerned when the criteria suggests that all that you are worth to your significant other is a safe financial net and the added benefits that comes with it. I feel you would be robbed, as some of our fathers were, of true priceless soul searching experiences i believe companionship is about. I am concerned over a narrative that suggests poor people have no beauty- as if the soul of a man loses complexion because his wallet is not thick enough. What then will become of our relationships, when the justification for treating women as property lies on the tip of the tongue of those who embrace the idiom as a cornerstone of intimacy?  I worry, that it will overwhelm and overtake us...that a certain complex will ensue when we relate with other natural beings who are only different because their reproductive organs are not as external as ours. The narrative which sought to show appreciation for the pricelessness of women ended up placing strain on the man and justified dehumanizing behaviour to the "purchased woman". 

Sometimes it really just seems idioms are for idiots. I have left many things unargued, i trust you will read what i have not written. The aim is to challenge the concept, looking at its consequences (sometimes really unintended). Do we not know better? 

Ponder with me.

I do not suggest you do not embrace wealth in your life. I do not suggest you do not use it to add value in pursuit of intimate happiness. I do however implore that you do not find yourself victim to the subtle nuances that may try settling into your subconscious suggesting that whoever will find herself dependent on you, is inferior because of your capital power. She will be priceless, as you are. May you not make her feel inadequate and vice versa if the roles were changed. Your values are priceless, so don't sell out on them as well. For wherever you decide beauty lies, in sight or pocket, both are subject to change. 

Certainly, you will do well to remember the yardstick of the Eternal One, how the value of a man's soul is what was deemed worthy of all creation.

My problem with the Freedom Charter

Like Steven Friedman highlights correctly: “Political documents, like politicians, do not serve us best when they are worshiped rather than critically analyzed”. 

The question of whether the freedom charter should be viewed as a revolutionary document or a democratic manifest must stem from the clarity provided above. The freedom charter is not without contention if brought to close scrutiny of what it entails and how it is articulated. The charter was drafted in 1955 with the final drafting of the Freedom Charter being undertaken by a small committee, which remained anonymous.

The preamble of the charter commences with the important statement that “South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white…” Ten Sections follow, each headed by a specific demand:

1. The people shall govern
2. All national groups shall have equal rights
3. The people shall share in the country’s wealth
4. The land shall be shared among those who work it
5. All shall be equal before the law
6. All shall enjoy equal human rights
7. There shall be work and security
8. The doors of learning and culture shall be opened
9. There shall be houses, security and comfort
10. There shall be peace and friendship

The charter ends with the solemn pledge: “These freedoms we will fight for, side by side, throughout our lives, until we have won our liberty”. By accepting the opening statement (preamble) the Congress of the People (2 888 delegates) accepted the principle of multiracialism; this is despite the fact that, as McKinely highlights, the PAC and black consciousness thinkers, with an Africanist nationalism narrative, vehemently rejected this and is arguably why both the PAC and Black consciousness thinkers broke away from the ANC.

The view point is that such a statement advocates “that the robber and the robbed are equal owners of the loot”. The idea met with some opposition, with left-wing radicals of the ANC wishing for militant and the right-wings distrusting a multiracial campaign. Acceptance of the 3^rd and 4^th sections means that the congress accepted the principle of nationalization (this meant that the mines, banks and factories should be transferred to workers). Other demands were to some extent moderate and utopian in nature.

However the charter has no Marxist narrative (it speaks not of a class struggle), the reference to nationalization is placed in vague terms and indicates state capitalism. As such, the charter cannot be viewed as a blueprint envisaging the destruction of our present parliamentary system of government and its replacement by a peoples republic; in essence, the Charter cannot be viewed as a revolutionary document for its main purpose, as articulated by Jordan Ngubane, was “to condition the African people for the purpose of accepting communism via the back door”. A revolution is a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system; 60 years from its birth, the charter has failed to radically overhaul the system of oppression (namely the economic and political systems of the country) and serves more of a democratic manifest of false promises.

Though writers such as Nsibirwa may argue that the Freedom charter continues to inspire us when things go right but may also help to point us in the right direction when things go wrong, and in view of its adoption in part of the constitution of the republic of South Africa, the value and the Relevance of the Freedom Charter, taking into consideration the above mentioned, outside of the political climate of which it was established, has become a shadow of the past. Its definitive sections which brought hope for a revolution which never started has false hope for its implementation currently and in the future. It would take a revolution to draw us back to the ideals of the Freedom Charter; a revolution which our current political climate, both locally and internationally, provides little to no room for. For the main fact that the freedom charter is a point of reference and not a driving force arguably reiterates its notion of a democratic archive as opposed to a radical driving tool and is, today, detached from reality.

By Thabo Shingange