On the vuvuzela and tolerance — part 2

I’m amazed! I have come to a conclusion that some of my people are paranoid and some of my people are angry. I submit that my previous article titled “On the vuvuzela and tolerance” was probably one of the most moderate and fair views on the subject. And I’m not blowing my horn!

Popular football analyst Bareng-Batho Kortjaas penned a very aggressive argument in the Sunday Times, titled: “To the vuvuzela-haters — this is Africa”. He says “the air horn … has got airheads mouthing a helluva lot of hot air”. He continues: “The irony of it all is that the most denouncing the vuvuzela’s democratic right to be blown are part-time football fans who, under normal circumstances avoid setting a foot near a soccer match because it is ‘too dangerous’. The local football tradition will not be done away with to appease a few Europeans and a handful of local ‘fans’ who do not even know what the local soccer league is called.”

Ouch! That is entirely true, but painfully harsh. The sports editor of Business Day also said: “Perhaps it hasn’t come to Europeans’ attention that they are no longer our colonial masters.”

Moderate? Fair? Here’s why.

From the beginning I sought to move away from racial/cultural stereotypes (ie Africa this, Europe that). Subsequently, I narrowed down the argument to “like, dislike and intolerance”. That is, some of my people like the vuvuzela and some of my people dislike it. The problem is “BOTH” are intolerant of one another. Therefore the argument of “intolerance” applied to both sides of the debate. To further substantiate, I pointed out in conclusion that “we cannot afford to be rude and arrogant” as much as our “visitors” must strive to understand the locals.

Having elaborated I’m still amazed as to where “race card” and other idiosyncrasies come in. It is irresistible to conclude that some of my people are “PARANOID” and some of my people are “ANGRY”!