Is Mr John Minto a true 'friend of the natives'?

This has to be said. So I am going to say it: Mr John Minto is not a true “true friend of the natives!”

The time to call some self-proclaimed false “friends of the natives” to order is now.

It is not surprising that few African public intellectuals have taken Minto to task for his irresponsible rantings and ravings against a South African presidential award, except for Mike Trapido.

Over the past few weeks, we have seen that this Minto fellah has — like a sudden bullet in the back — assumed an attack dog-mode upon learning that he was being considered for a prize for “fighting for Africans”.

This “attack-dog mode” phenomenon is very common among media-created public intellectuals and other wacky white leftists who know and truly understand that their role and responsibility is: attack the black government (sic) and undermine its integrity.

Some of us have been wondering who this sudden hero and “friend of the natives” is.

Of course, millions of Africans in country — who are not followers of our self-appointed leaders — do not know him.

But it turns out that he is an Australian anti-apartheid activist who got an international reputation and profile for haunting, harassing and disrupting Springbok racists’ international tours in the 1980s.

He is said to have mobilised thousands of fellows who were agitated enough to do something to “liberate lazy natives” who could not fight their own battles back in the Dark Continent.

To stop a bunch of misguided white racists from sleeping in posh hotels only to wake up to chase a pear-shaped ball was Minto’s contribution to the struggle. He even had batons renamed “Minto bars”.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Some appreciate the little help that Minto offered to the anti-apartheid struggle.

But he has no reason to claim that he was “fighting for Africans”. Also, he has no right to spit on the face of a legitimate and democratic government that was merely considering giving him an award, if at all.

I am talking about the Companion of OR Tambo Award, which is the highest honour granted to a non-South African in recognition of friendship, cooperation and support.

Some of our people we have not even been considered include Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, Bob Marley and WEB du Bois, for our ancestors’ sake.

The problem of the 21st century for Africans, especially in this last country to be free, is that every John Minto or Helen Suzman, for instance, claims to have “fought for Africans”.

These “friends of the natives”, now, conveniently forget that Africans have waged a serious, long and hard struggle for political freedom and self-determination for almost 400 years.

The African soil is soaked up to the knees with blood, tears and sweat of forgotten heroes who paid the ultimate price.

Someone needs to wake up Minto and other “friends of the natives” from their dreams.

Today, Africans in South Africa are free, if at all, because of their own internal struggles waged against a white, supremacist, patriarchal, racist and capitalist regime. If they are still oppressed and exploited, they have nobody to blame as much as they have nobody to praise for their freedom and democracy.

This pyrrhic victory belongs to countless Africans who have put up a brave fight for peace, brotherhood, the land, anti-racism and every material resource that is buried under it. Period!

What has actually changed in the white paternalism and patronising attitude of Minto and other “friends of the natives” who go about claiming the glory of the African struggle history and tell everybody in the world that they are the ones who “fought for Africans”?

I do not think that much has changed in the structure of institutionalised white liberal paternalism.

There is no change in the psychological culture that white liberal lefties were born to control African minds, not only in how to react to oppression and exploitation but also to rule over them.

For instance, compare John Minto’s attitude with the besieged government of FW de Klerk in the 1980s and that of Thabo Mbeki in the 2000s. Now, in a sense, there has been no change in the strategy.

Contrary to his false, rabid and radical views that he was “not fighting for small black elite to become millionaires” and the ANC economic system of government is a “crime against humanity”, this does not necessarily make him a “friend of the natives”.

In fact, I find his attitude to this government to be two-faced, wimpish, fraudulent and weak. I am not going to agree necessarily with Minto simply because he denounces those who “did not struggle to be poor”.

First, he should acknowledge that the African political leadership has been forced by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, G8 and other money-mongering capitalist forces to keep the white economy stable at the expense of the interests of poor and marginalised African people.

If the ANC government, or any African leader, for instance, commits what may be perceived to be political crimes against the material interests of their people, sometimes it is because they have little choice.

The guilty ones are white multinationals and Western governments who tighten screws to make it impossible for them to improve the lot of their people.

Minto must tell us the whole truth and stop selecting the facts. Instead, he has identified a “window of vulnerability” in the policies of Finance Minister Trevor Manuel and now wants to denounce African hard-won freedom and democracy as a fraud.

Now, Mr Minto, if you want some of us to consider you seriously a true “friend of the natives”, you first have to accept that the problems of African government do not always lie with the black faces and names in power.

These men and women are caught in the pincer grasp of white racism and capitalism, which tramples on any African leader or government that does not toe the Western line to make the continent prostrate herself before the white gods.

You are only trying to whoop up feelings against a black government (sic), which is tantamount to blaming the victim.

Those living in the age of hope still think a few of our leaders are still kept awake at night by the slow pace of delivery.

I think if you want to be relevant and reclaim your glory as a hero and true “friend of the natives”, you will need to launch your highly politically aggressive public-relations campaign against the advisers of black governments and other Western experts who draw up the policies of these governments.

We demand that you identify the colour of their eyes and feel the texture of their hair, as if that does not matter. Tell us who they are and where they studied. Tell us why it is them and not Africans who advise and consult for their governments.

It is wrong of you to fuel the fires and increase the pressure against an African government that has its back against the wall.

Whatever happens here in terms of government policies, the last people they have to consider are poor black Africans.

Of course, this African majority government is different in that, at least rhetorically, and to some extent in practice, it is genuinely concerned about social-welfare programmes.

The FW government, for instance, deprived Africans the right to vote in their own motherland and treated them like little children.

This has made it possible for many philanthropic liberals to think that Africans need to look up to them for leadership.

Perhaps it is for the same reason that you think you “fought for Africans”. Now, come on!

The fact that a senior government leader has whispered a state secret — about remote plans to honour you for your little help — reflects the international spirit of brotherhood and appreciation for now forgotten supporters in many parts of the world.

In fact, it is too early for this government to honour you and your ilk. There are countless other heroes — dead and alive, known and unknown — who have not even been considered.

You were being offered a pedestal to remind Africans that it is too premature for them to celebrate because the majority have yet to enjoy the fruits of freedom and democracy. Instead, you hammer the stairs and smash the mic to promote and advance the African struggle against your personal wall of world fame and glory.

This is so much in contrast to the 1980s when you kept your eyes on the prize: African political freedom for self-determination!

There is a consensus among fellow media-created public intellectuals in the world that you should be applauded. I feel that it is just not right that you should be glorified for spitting in the face of African hospitality and friendliness.

This government is not the only imperfect government in the world. But the difference about it is that it is only 13 years old and its leaders are learning very fast after years of being hunted down like criminals for being prophets of a new era for Africa.

On the other hand, yes, you are half right in your assertion that the struggle was for freedom and not to make a few elites rich and drunk with power. So, for example, you would understand what makes them so.

You should come among them and talk sense to them before jumping on the podium to create short-lived international waves. This is what is expected from esteemed members of the press who crave the international spotlight to be public intellectuals.

They have abandoned being part of the struggle for genuine African freedom and democracy.

As soon as you crave being an international celebrity and hero by insulting the integrity of a black government (sic), you lose some of us.

There is a striking difference, a dramatic difference, between being a true “friend of the natives” and using them to turn yourself into a cheap political hero and celebrity.

Aluta continua! But we in Africa will always have true “friends of the natives” like you!