Hello People:
Just sharing a "rebuttal article" published in Washington Times in 1997. It was just one of instances in the era when I had to respond in the "media construction." The media has a way of creating its own reality for mass consumption. When you repeat it, the "gospel" is established. I changed the headline from what the journalist coined to reflect my on thinking. The rebuttal article comes after my reflection of today. But you can skip to the article.
If you were at the Memorial Service for the iconic Nelson Mandela at the National Cathedral, Washington, DC or followed it, as the stirring homily from Rev. Dr. Allan Boesak and incisive response from South African Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool enveloped the hall, it was easily conceivable how the innate desire for a just and equitable society, eschewing bitterness yet never losing sight of the principles and miles ahead, is a moral imperative. It is instinctively repugnant when any ideology or religion ignores the diabolism of oppression for any end.
Mandela was called a Son of Africa in presentations and songs, which conveyed the potential of Africa. The moving moment was also reflected by the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, Ambassador Roble Olhaye of Djibouti.
The human commonality and the act of conscience that brings down walls were poignantly delivered by Vice President Joe Biden from experiential knowledge. I flinched at the brazenness that corrupted the soul of the Apartheid authorities in South Africa. I would have been an expert performer of toyi toyi (the protest dance) or so I felt. But that is in the past. The valor of many around the world - Blacks and Whites, poor and rich ended Apartheid.
Yes, even from the ashes of ruins, the broken in spirit can rise. Equity may yet to come to the disadvantaged but journey began. IT IS FOR USE TO GET TO THE DESTINY.
What is to be feared, as Ambassador Rasool intoned, is forgetting the struggle when the affront is not as brutal as yesterday - but cruel all the same. "IT AIN' T OVER," the rallying cry of Dr. Boesak captured the essence.
I say to you, the reader: Each person was born with a gift that uplifts. Whether it is a cup of water you give to the thirsty or an ideal you defended for the voiceless, you cannot underestimate the intangible worth of that action. We may be unique but not necessarily superior. You do not have to be an orator or a warrior. Just be you, rich in your soul with a desire to redress a plight. It could be a person or place. Your part would be done.
Now to the rebuttal. The media was abuzz and Nelson Mandela was lambasted for....not toeing some lines. The conservative media - the same outlet that branded him as a terrorist - plucked some nerves. Not so, said me. SMILE. I simply demanded equal time....taking the fight to the source...so to speak. I responded to the article written by Todd Pitock. He is a journalist and you can visit him at http://www.toddpitock.com/
The South African Embassy sent me a "Thank You." Most of all, my Mom reminded me of this value: It is not whether one succeeds in curing an ill, just don't look the other way. She read both Mr. Pitock's article and my response and said, "you took the fight where it belonged."
There were other confrontations or rapid responses via talk shows. But this memory lane is enough for the idea. Have a blessed week everyone.
MsJoe
Note: To read Mr. Pitock's full article, you have to go to Washington Times, then Archives. Search from October 1 to Nov. 30, 2007. Since it is past 180 days, you have to pay $2.50. I paid to retrieve my response after registering.
 |
The Washington TimesNelson Mandela refuses to pander to Western politicsNovember 14, 1997Section: A COMMENTARY EDITORIALS LETTERS Edition: 2 Page: A22 Todd Pitock's Nov. 4 Op-Ed column, "Nelson Mandela's `dear brother leader,'" epitomizes the arrogance of the superpower mentality. He begins by praising President Mandela for steering South Africa to become a multiracial democracy. Mr. Pitock marvels at, and perhaps is relieved by, the fact that Mr. Mandela has not stooped to taking revenge upon his former oppressors. Nevertheless, Mr. Pitock expects Mr. Mandela to maintain a shameless, hypocritical allegiance to foreign powers that cared more about their economic exploits than the moral bankruptcy and human indignity of apartheid. Mr. Pitock characterizes Mr. Mandela's visit to Libya as either "naive and irresponsible" or "savvy and unprincipled." Both depictions are absurd. Over the years, Mr. Mandela has maintained a consistent approach toward global alignment and has refrained from engaging in unethical or immoral acts of political prostitution. His dealings with Libya, the Palestinian Authority and Cuba (and his subsequent dismissal of the unilateral impositions of the United States) display a rare fortitude that is sorely missing in global leadership. I agree with Mr. Pitock that Mr. Mandela "threw good politics to the wind" by embracing Libya's Col. Moammar Gadhafi. In so doing, Mr. Mandela seized the moral high ground by refusing to pander to "good politics."Mr. Mandela does not need to qualify or apologize for his positions toward Libya, Cuba or any other nation. Where were all the "concerned" nations in the early and critical days of Mr. Mandela's 27 years in jail, when the African National Congress and indigenous Africans wallowed in hopelessness? And how dare America or Britain rear its head as a moral arbiter? Mr. Pitock further accuses Mr. Mandela of harboring "residual bitterness" and derides him for declining to answer a question concerning prospects of nationalization in a 1993 meeting with U.S. investors in New York City. Accordingly, Mr. Mandela lost an opportunity to appeal, woo and appease the very investors he was supposed to court. Mr. Pitock, it seems, cannot fathom that a Third World leader, let alone an African, would refuse to bow to the altar of money or subject his independence to the whims of a superpower. Mr. Pitock then claims that Mr. Mandela is forfeiting his political capital by allowing assorted "villains" to bask in his "great man's glow." Who is Mr. Pitock to define another nation's friend or villain? His attempt to lecture on Mr. Mandela's role in African matters should be repudiated by Africans. Upon his visit to Libya, Mr. Mandela hugged Col. Gadhafi. Mr. Pitock says that act was unbecoming of a "saint of our times." That's ridiculous. Mr. Pitock is injecting self-serving passion into a case of practical reasoning. The fact is, Mr. Mandela made two public trips within a week to Libya. What does it matter how he greets Col. Gadhafi? Finally, Mr. Pitock says that by exercising his prerogative to determine whom to call a friend, Mr. Mandela has "diminished" his accomplishments and made himself "seem suddenly old and foolish." If anything, Mr. Mandela's ability to shun the avarice of politicking makes him look wise. That wisdom may have come from the age of his experience. EVELYNJOEExecutive director International African Foundation Washington |
All content Copyright 2006 The Washington Times LLC and may not be republished without permission.
|