‘Bafana Bafana’ offends Mbeki
Thabo Mbeki, presumably in an effort to appear even-handed, has lashed out against the nicknames of our national football teams. One of football’s big three, Jomo Sono, former coach of the national side and owner of the Jomo Cosmos club side, agrees.
They squads are fondly known among supporters as Bafana Bafana (the boys), Banyana Banyana (the girls), and for the junior team, Ama-glug-glug (in imitation of a famous advertisement by their sponsor, Sasol). Likewise, the Springbok rugby squad is often referred to as Ama-boko-boko. Even the paraplegic teams haven’t escaped the trend: they’re known as Ama-kroko-kroko. This is both funny and endearing, and has done a lot to raise their profile among sport fans.
But these names are disrespectful, Mbeki believes. This all appears to stem from the controversy around the name of the rugby Springboks. As the second story above makes clear, there’s a perception that “the national sides used to be known as the Springboks during the whites-only apartheid era which ended in 1994, but most of the teams have since adopted new monikers such as the Proteas in cricket.”
The last part is true. Only the rugby squad were excepted from the Proteas rule. But I fail to see what the Springbok emblem, colours, name or history have to do with Apartheid.
The South African rugby union side was called the Springboks long before isolation, long before Apartheid, and before even the Union was formed in 1910.
In 1906, as the programme alongside shows, they not only played as the Springboks, but delivered a Zulu-derived war cry. (Accounts differ, but the Springbok war cry may even have predated the New Zealand team’s famous Maori-inspired war dance, the Haka.)
“The public should participate in a plan where we look for new names for our national teams,” Mbeki is quoted in the article as saying on a local radio station. “I’m not saying we must call all our national teams Springboks, but we have to change the names, the emblems and the colours the teams wear, so that they can be recognised as representatives of South Africa.”
Firstly, I don’t know what name would be more recognisable than the Springbok. It’s a famous African animal, and is far better known that the pretty but relatively obscure Protea.
Second, and more importantly, the public were involved, and they decided on Amabokoboko, Bafana Bafana and Banyana Banyana. What the politicians call the teams is their own problem. Please don’t feign “consultation” and “participation” and all that tripe when you’ve just told people that the names they chose are disrespectful and insufficiently patriotic.
If they want to call all national colours “Proteas”, fine. I’d be sorry to see the Springbok symbol go, because it’s a strong rugby brand with a long history, but they’re South African colours and I guess the government that issues them gets to call them whatever they want.
But what officials don’t get to mess with is the nicknames teams get from their supporters.
On the other hand, perhaps we should ban the word “Bucs”. Bucanneers! How unoriginal. And who’s ever heard of an African side being named after French outlaws who made bacon in the Caribbean anyway? They’re Orlando Pirates, and don’t you forget it. Anyone — especially Amakhosi — who calls them Bucs should get a fine, or perhaps an hour or two in the stocks outside the stadium. Speaking of Amakhosi, they aren’t. They’re Kaizer Chiefs. Besides, honkeys confuse it with Ezenkosi, and that makes Jomo cross.
Look people. It’s simple. You’re being disrespectful and unpatriotic, and The Honourable State President Mr Thabo Mbeki says so. He’d have wagged his finger, if he could, but he was speaking on radio.
“But I fail to see what the Springbok emblem, colours, name or history have to do with Apartheid.”
This is such a deliberately ignorant statement and I am assuming it is only used as a rhetorical device. If so, it is a poor attempt at sounding clever.
No, I’m afraid I meant it in all seriousness.
Perhaps I should have omitted “history” from that list, because it like all South African institutions, it shares South Africa’s history, which included Apartheid. It was — of course — a whites-only team for many years. It was — like most South African institutions — subject to international isolation during the final years of Apartheid. But it predates that era. I fail to see any inherent association that would warrant dissociation from the symbol or name, any more than I see a reason to dissociate oneself from rugby itself. Attributing guilt by vicarious association strikes me as antithetical to our culture of reconciliation. It’s a road to nowhere.
If I failed to sound clever, my only defence is that the statement wasn’t an attempt at sounding clever.
I also wonder why Mbeki does not worry about other symbols of Apartheid that government continues to use to this day: The Union Buildings, Parliament Buildings and Tuynhius - all instruments of the apartheid government.
‘predates apartheid’
What apartheid was the only form of violent, racist terror visited upon South Africa’s majority. Ah, colonialism, that benign non-violent system, was in operation before that.
Don’t put words in my mouth, please, and don’t move the goalposts.
I stand by my point: guilt by vicarious association is a road to nowhere — whether it’s weak association with the previous regime, or with the regime before that, or with the regime before that.
Or wait. Maybe we should ban railways. Built with slave labour by British imperialists, after all. At least let’s call them something else, so it’s abundantly clear that we do NOT condone the use of prisoners of war or second-class citizens for building things. It’s clearly not clear enough right now.
While I’m at it, maybe I’ll change my name. After all, it’s Dutch, which is horribly colonialist and Euro-centric, and I was educated under PW Botha in a whites-only school. Yep, a name change is definitely called for.
Your style is definitely to not just shift the goalposts but start a new game. I think it is a deliberate strategy.
“guilt by vicarious association”
“weak association”
It’s all relative. I find it always interesting how in the South African case everything, including the past, quickly became relative.
Finally then you resort to that last refuge: your whole identity is being attacked. Nothing of the sort is happening.
I’ve seen this before. I read this kind of stuff every day in the neocon press over here.
I rest my case.