Why Zambia’s Vice-President doesn’t like South Africa – and why he might have a point

[Steve Hayes]

So Zambian Vice-President Guy Scott doesn�t like South Africa, or South
Africans. In an otherwise hilarious interview with the Guardian, Scott flouted
the rules of diplomacy to launch a full-fronted assault on our foreign policy,
our president and our general disposition (arrogant and overbearing,
apparently). Should we be insulted? Absolutely � but only because, like all
the best insults, Scott�s are very close to the bone. By SIMON ALLISON

Interviewing politicians is, as a rule, not particularly exciting for
journalists. Interviews can be a nightmare to schedule, and when they finally
happen it�s hard to get politicians singing from anything other than their
tightly-scripted song sheet. At times, the whole exercise feels like a
glorified press release, and we have to work really hard to fill in the gaps
and find an interesting angle.

Every now and then, however, someone will come along who wanders so far
off-script that the headlines practically write themselves. Right now, that
someone is Zambian Vice-President Guy Scott.

In an astonishingly frank and frequently hilarious interview with the
Guardian�s David Smith (worth reading in full), Scott dispensed with all
diplomatic niceties to offer his opinion on Robert Mugabe, gay rights, his
government�s human rights record and � most interestingly for us � South
Africa and South Africans.

He�s not very impressed with us.

Try this for starters:

�The South Africans are very backward in terms of historical development,� he
told Smith. �I hate South Africans. That's not a fair thing to say because I
like a lot of South Africans but they really think they're the bees' knees and
actually they've been the cause of so much trouble in this part of the world�I
have a suspicion the blacks model themselves on the whites now that they're in
power. 'Don't you know who we are, man?��

He continued in this vein: �I dislike South Africa for the same reason that
Latin Americans dislike the United States, I think. It's just too big and too
unsubtle.�

Ouch. Arrogant, unsubtle trouble-makers who haven�t quite got over apartheid �
surely he�s got us all wrong? Doesn�t he know we�re the rainbow nation?

But much as I want to be offended, my inclination to argue with Scott is
tempered by the fact that I�ve said nearly the exact same thing myself. �The
rest of Africa doesn�t like us very much,� I wrote in an analysis last year.
�Being a South African in Africa is like being an American in the rest of the
world. We�re looked upon with a mix of envy and resentment, our wealth and
power relative to the rest of the continent ensuring that most of the time we
get our way.�

Alright Scott, we�ll cede this point to you � we can be a little overbearing
when it comes to our interactions with Africa. And yes, our current leaders
may have learned a few tricks from their apartheid-era predecessors,
specifically the one about running an entire country for the benefit of a
privileged minority (for �whites� insert �Guptas�).

But Scott�s not yet finished with his South Africa-bashing, going on to
question the holy grail of South African foreign policy: our BRICS membership.
�They think in Brics that the 's' actually stands for South Africa whereas it
stands for Africa. Nobody would want to go in for a partnership with Brazil,
China, India and South Africa for Christ's sake.�

Again, we must reluctantly concede that Scott has a point. South Africa�s
addition to BRICS has always been contentious, precisely because we do not
wield anything near the kind of economic or political power of the other
nations in the group (including Russia, which Scott failed to mention). As the
Economist explained in March, our primary qualification was geographic.

�There was just one problem with the BRICs: no African countries were
included. This was a little embarrassing. Overlooking Africa suggested that
the continent was an economic irrelevance, good only for providing raw
materials to the rest. It also cast doubt on the group�s claim to speak for
the emerging world. Two African countries might have been candidates, Nigeria
and South Africa. But only one would keep the acronym intact. And so, in 2010,
the club of BRICs became the BRICS.�

Scott�s final attack was even more personal, and won�t make him any friends in
the Union Building. He compared President Jacob Zuma to another South African
president � and no, it wasn�t Mandela.

�He's very like De Klerk,� Scott said. �He tells us, �You just leave Zimbabwe
to me.� Excuse me, who the hell liberated you anyway, was it not us? I mean, I
quite like him, he seems a rather genial character but I pity him his
advisers.�

Again, this taps into a gnawing resentment from other African countries about
South Africa�s at times bull-headed foreign policy. The mediation efforts in
Zimbabwe may formally be under the SADC banner, but Pretoria is setting the
agenda, and has been since Mbeki�s time in office. This is clearly beginning
to rankle with our regional neighbours. And the barb about Zuma�s advisers is
disingenuous, and is the only nod to diplomatic courtesy in the entire
interview. For Zuma, ultimately, is responsible for appointing his pitiable
advisors; to criticize them is to criticize him.

But perhaps Scott�s most telling point is his position on who liberated South
Africa. A number of factors went into the dismantling of the apartheid state
in 1994, and a major one was the support of other African states for the
anti-apartheid movement. Zambia in particular played a hugely significant
role, hosting the ANC�s head office-in-exile where, for a time, a certain
Jacob Zuma found a home.

For this, South Africa owes Zambia a debt of gratitude, but it�s a debt that
Zambia�s vice-president clearly feels has not been paid. This might be the
underlying cause of his resentment, with our sometimes brash behaviour only
making things worse.

Either way, it�s clear that the South African government has a few bridges it
needs to build with its Zambian counterpart, and it will be interesting to see
how our top politicians react to Scott�s frank, if insulting, assessment �
which, like all the best insults, is just a little too close to the bone for
comfort. DM

Zambian vice-president: �South Africans are backward� on the Guardian

http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2013-05-02-why-zambias-vice-president-doesnt-like-south-africa-and-why-he-might-have-a-point


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 08:45:38 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>�Being a South African in Africa is like being an American in the rest of the
>world. We�re looked upon with a mix of envy and resentment, our wealth and
>power relative to the rest of the continent ensuring that most of the time we
>get our way.�

Isn't the speaker doing something here that you decry? Referring to
Africa as a whole as if it's really not a whole and must be viewed as
a sum of the parts? Like Americans do when saying they're "going to
Africa"?

Not that *I* think there's anything wrong with the usage. I'm not
even sure I understand your objection.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:16:43 -0400, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I wasn't objecting, merely giving an example of some ways in which the word
"Africa" is used within Africa.

"Africa", like "America" can mean various different things, depending on who's
speaking, what they are thinking of, and where they happen to be at the time.

I'm not deprecating any particular usage, just pointing out that there are
different ones.

It's you and Evan getting all prescriptivist about my use of "America" that I
decry.

[follow-ups set to aue]

[John Doe]

This troll should at least be labeled off topic...

--
Steve Hayes <hayesstw telkomsa.net> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Steve Hayes <hayesstw telkomsa.net>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.south-africa,soc.culture.african,za.politics,za.misc,alt.usage.english
> Subject: Why Zambia's Vice-President doesn't like South Africa - and why he might have a point
> Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 08:45:38 +0200
> Organization: Khanya Publications
> Lines: 121
> Message-ID: <nn24o8hppdgdgrc4ujk93bs7fdoca9g748 4ax.com>
> Reply-To: hayesstw yahoo.com
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="536afcf32fa9b4b268f91f208d303adc"; logging-data="13223"; mail-complaints-to="abuse eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX180qzTdLEo7WzjGXKEPMOo1FM45Vfr6miI="
> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.652
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:CAC6lOYWGolnyNGZPO2zxn4sizw=
> Xref: mx05.eternal-september.org soc.culture.south-africa:5482 soc.culture.african:5636 za.politics:629 za.misc:299 alt.usage.english:401209

>
> So Zambian Vice-President Guy Scott doesn't like South Africa, or South
> Africans. In an otherwise hilarious interview with the Guardian, Scott flouted
> the rules of diplomacy to launch a full-fronted assault on our foreign policy,
> our president and our general disposition (arrogant and overbearing,

> apparently). Should we be insulted? Absolutely - but only because, like all

> the best insults, Scott's are very close to the bone. By SIMON ALLISON
>
> Interviewing politicians is, as a rule, not particularly exciting for
> journalists. Interviews can be a nightmare to schedule, and when they finally
> happen it's hard to get politicians singing from anything other than their
> tightly-scripted song sheet. At times, the whole exercise feels like a
> glorified press release, and we have to work really hard to fill in the gaps
> and find an interesting angle.
>
> Every now and then, however, someone will come along who wanders so far
> off-script that the headlines practically write themselves. Right now, that
> someone is Zambian Vice-President Guy Scott.
>
> In an astonishingly frank and frequently hilarious interview with the
> Guardian's David Smith (worth reading in full), Scott dispensed with all
> diplomatic niceties to offer his opinion on Robert Mugabe, gay rights, his

> government's human rights record and - most interestingly for us - South

> Africa and South Africans.
>
> He's not very impressed with us.
>
> Try this for starters:
>
> "The South Africans are very backward in terms of historical development," he
> told Smith. "I hate South Africans. That's not a fair thing to say because I
> like a lot of South Africans but they really think they're the bees' knees and

> actually they've been the cause of so much trouble in this part of the world.I

> have a suspicion the blacks model themselves on the whites now that they're in
> power. 'Don't you know who we are, man?'"
>
> He continued in this vein: "I dislike South Africa for the same reason that
> Latin Americans dislike the United States, I think. It's just too big and too
> unsubtle."
>

> Ouch. Arrogant, unsubtle trouble-makers who haven't quite got over apartheid -

> surely he's got us all wrong? Doesn't he know we're the rainbow nation?
>
> But much as I want to be offended, my inclination to argue with Scott is
> tempered by the fact that I've said nearly the exact same thing myself. "The
> rest of Africa doesn't like us very much," I wrote in an analysis last year.
> "Being a South African in Africa is like being an American in the rest of the
> world. We're looked upon with a mix of envy and resentment, our wealth and
> power relative to the rest of the continent ensuring that most of the time we
> get our way."
>

> Alright Scott, we'll cede this point to you - we can be a little overbearing

> when it comes to our interactions with Africa. And yes, our current leaders
> may have learned a few tricks from their apartheid-era predecessors,
> specifically the one about running an entire country for the benefit of a
> privileged minority (for 'whites' insert 'Guptas').
>
> But Scott's not yet finished with his South Africa-bashing, going on to
> question the holy grail of South African foreign policy: our BRICS membership.
> "They think in Brics that the 's' actually stands for South Africa whereas it
> stands for Africa. Nobody would want to go in for a partnership with Brazil,
> China, India and South Africa for Christ's sake."
>
> Again, we must reluctantly concede that Scott has a point. South Africa's
> addition to BRICS has always been contentious, precisely because we do not
> wield anything near the kind of economic or political power of the other
> nations in the group (including Russia, which Scott failed to mention). As the
> Economist explained in March, our primary qualification was geographic.
>
> "There was just one problem with the BRICs: no African countries were
> included. This was a little embarrassing. Overlooking Africa suggested that
> the continent was an economic irrelevance, good only for providing raw
> materials to the rest. It also cast doubt on the group's claim to speak for
> the emerging world. Two African countries might have been candidates, Nigeria
> and South Africa. But only one would keep the acronym intact. And so, in 2010,
> the club of BRICs became the BRICS."
>
> Scott's final attack was even more personal, and won't make him any friends in
> the Union Building. He compared President Jacob Zuma to another South African

> president - and no, it wasn't Mandela.

>
> "He's very like De Klerk," Scott said. "He tells us, 'You just leave Zimbabwe
> to me.' Excuse me, who the hell liberated you anyway, was it not us? I mean, I
> quite like him, he seems a rather genial character but I pity him his
> advisers."
>
> Again, this taps into a gnawing resentment from other African countries about
> South Africa's at times bull-headed foreign policy. The mediation efforts in
> Zimbabwe may formally be under the SADC banner, but Pretoria is setting the
> agenda, and has been since Mbeki's time in office. This is clearly beginning
> to rankle with our regional neighbours. And the barb about Zuma's advisers is
> disingenuous, and is the only nod to diplomatic courtesy in the entire
> interview. For Zuma, ultimately, is responsible for appointing his pitiable
> advisors; to criticize them is to criticize him.
>
> But perhaps Scott's most telling point is his position on who liberated South
> Africa. A number of factors went into the dismantling of the apartheid state
> in 1994, and a major one was the support of other African states for the
> anti-apartheid movement. Zambia in particular played a hugely significant
> role, hosting the ANC's head office-in-exile where, for a time, a certain
> Jacob Zuma found a home.
>
> For this, South Africa owes Zambia a debt of gratitude, but it's a debt that
> Zambia's vice-president clearly feels has not been paid. This might be the
> underlying cause of his resentment, with our sometimes brash behaviour only
> making things worse.
>
> Either way, it's clear that the South African government has a few bridges it
> needs to build with its Zambian counterpart, and it will be interesting to see

> how our top politicians react to Scott's frank, if insulting, assessment -

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:

> On Thu, 02 May 2013 17:16:43 -0400, Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 May 2013 08:45:38 +0200, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>�Being a South African in Africa is like being an American in the
>>>rest of the world. We�re looked upon with a mix of envy and
>>>resentment, our wealth and power relative to the rest of the
>>>continent ensuring that most of the time we get our way.�
>>
>>Isn't the speaker doing something here that you decry? Referring to
>>Africa as a whole as if it's really not a whole and must be viewed as
>>a sum of the parts? Like Americans do when saying they're "going to
>>Africa"?
>>
>>Not that *I* think there's anything wrong with the usage. I'm not
>>even sure I understand your objection.
>
> I wasn't objecting, merely giving an example of some ways in which
> the word "Africa" is used within Africa.
>
> "Africa", like "America" can mean various different things,
> depending on who's speaking, what they are thinking of, and where
> they happen to be at the time.
>
> I'm not deprecating any particular usage, just pointing out that
> there are different ones.
>
> It's you and Evan getting all prescriptivist about my use of
> "America" that I decry.

Not at all. I've yet to see your use of "America". I've only seen
you talk about it.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The law of supply and demand tells us
SF Bay Area (1982-) |that when the price of something is
Chicago (1964-1982) |artificially set below market level,
|there will soon be none of that thing
evan.kir...@gmail.com |left--as you may have noticed the
|last time you tried to buy something
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |for nothing.
| P.J. O'Rourke

[Steve Hayes]

It was my use of "America" that started the seemingly unending discussions
about the topic. You may not have seen that, but I'm sure you could go back
and find it if you wanted to. I think it was in the "Am I being too harsh?"
thread, in response ro Robert Bannister.

[CDB]

On 03/05/2013 11:34 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:16:25 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:

[looking for America]

>>> It's you and Evan getting all prescriptivist about my use of
>>> "America" that I decry.

>> Not at all. I've yet to see your use of "America". I've only seen
>> you talk about it.

> It was my use of "America" that started the seemingly unending discussions
> about the topic. You may not have seen that, but I'm sure you could go back
> and find it if you wanted to. I think it was in the "Am I being too harsh?"
> thread, in response ro Robert Bannister.

I think Evan meant "your use of 'America'" as found in some other
people's usage. Citations, like. EMWTK.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:

> On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:16:25 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>>
>>> It's you and Evan getting all prescriptivist about my use of
>>> "America" that I decry.
>>
>>Not at all. I've yet to see your use of "America". I've only seen
>>you talk about it.
>
> It was my use of "America" that started the seemingly unending
> discussions about the topic. You may not have seen that, but I'm
> sure you could go back and find it if you wanted to. I think it was
> in the "Am I being too harsh?" thread, in response ro Robert
> Bannister.

It was your challenging Rob Bannister when he said "Even we don't say
Mexico is in America" by saying

I was under the impression that Mexico was in America, just not in
the United States thereof.

that started this round of the discussion. That's not a use of
"America"; it's an assertion about your use of the word "America" used
to start a discussion of the word.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |A little government and a little luck
SF Bay Area (1982-) |are necessary in life, but only a
Chicago (1964-1982) |fool trusts either of them.
| P.J. O'Rourke
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

No, I'd be happy with him posting examples of his own use, outside of
the context of discussions of the word. He's posted a lot, he's got a
blog, and he apparently kept a diary for many years, from which he's
been able to find and post excerpts.

One thing you learn when learning to be a linguist is that people's
views of how they speak, including what's grammatical for them and how
words are used, is often at odds with the evidence from actually
listening to them.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |I believe there are more instances
SF Bay Area (1982-) |of the abridgment of the freedom of
Chicago (1964-1982) |the people by gradual and silent
|encroachments of those in power
evan.kir...@gmail.com |than by violent and sudden
|usurpations.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | James Madison

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 08:55:42 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum

<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 03 May 2013 16:16:25 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> It's you and Evan getting all prescriptivist about my use of
>>>> "America" that I decry.
>>>
>>>Not at all. I've yet to see your use of "America". I've only seen
>>>you talk about it.
>>
>> It was my use of "America" that started the seemingly unending
>> discussions about the topic. You may not have seen that, but I'm
>> sure you could go back and find it if you wanted to. I think it was
>> in the "Am I being too harsh?" thread, in response ro Robert
>> Bannister.
>
>It was your challenging Rob Bannister when he said "Even we don't say
>Mexico is in America" by saying
>
> I was under the impression that Mexico was in America, just not in
> the United States thereof.
>
>that started this round of the discussion. That's not a use of
>"America"; it's an assertion about your use of the word "America" used
>to start a discussion of the word.

This newsgroup is full of conversations in which someone says that they
understand a word to mean such and such, and someone else says, I understand
it differently.

I don't see why you have suddenly latched on to this particular instance to
raise a spurious objection, and to go on, and on, and on, ad nauseam.

If you believe that I said that to Rob Bannister, well there's your ev9idence.
If you don't accept it, so be it. I've got better things to do than to go
looking for other examples to try to convince you that my usage is my usage,
because you would probably just raise more spurious objections anyway.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 04 May 2013 08:59:21 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum

I have no idea how "America" is used in South Africa, but it occurs to
me that the nearest "America" to SA is South America.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Snidely]

On Saturday, Steve Hayes queried:

Evan's still looking for your usage, as in sentences you've written
outside of the discussion. Are they in your blog?

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?