Watching a doccie on tv last night about anti-apartheid public
protests and music concerts in Britain, during the apartheid era. I couldn’t
watch too closely, unfortunately, as making “3”-shaped birthday biscuits turned
out to be a lot more labour intensive than I had expected. But it got me to
wondering why apartheid South Africa had inspired so much more of an outpouring,
in the form of concerts, protest marches and media coverage, than other
oppressive regimes did, and do now.
Which is not to say that apartheid wasn’t vile. But I mean, at
roughly the same time, Pol Pot was exterminating around a quarter of his
country’s population. No concert.
Hundreds of thousands of political prisoners were languishing
in North Korean jails under Kim Jung-Il. No concert.
I don’t recall any “Free Aung San Suu Kyi” numbers for
Myanmar.
Mao Tse Tung was doing things that killed around 70 million
people. That’s around 69.95 million more that the politically related killings
under apartheid SA. (There were many more unaccounted for indirect
deaths, to be sure, but
still).
Not to mention President Berdymukhamedov of Turkmenistan,
because well, he’s impossible TO mention. I haven’t even bothered trying to
pronounce his name. (He’s a baddie, by the way. One of those political despots
in a part of the world that I’m a bit geographically fuzzy about).
There are so many more: Rwandan genocide, oppression of
Tibetans, five thousand Sudanese in Dafur dying every month. And of course Boko
Haram, Al-Qaeda, and now ISIS. Or is it now ISIL. No concerts that I am aware
of for the victims of these atrocities. (I may have missed something though, as
I don’t always have my finger on the pulse).
Basically, throughout the course of human history, there has
never been a time when certain people are not suffering under the oppression of
others. So why was the reaction to the oppression in South Africa …. different? The way
it took centre stage, and musicians from all over the world came together in
protest.
I am no political analyst, but I have my theories:
1.
In most of the examples mentioned above, the
oppressors look very much like the oppressed. By which I mean they have the
same amount of melanin in their skin. For some reason, if there is a difference
in skin colour between the oppressor and the oppressed, it gets people more
worked up.
2.
White guilt. A complex beast. People with less
melanin have issues which I’m not even going to start going in to, but suffice to say it
kind of feeds in to reason (1).
3.
The oppression going on in South Africa had a
special name of its own – Apartheid. It was a thing. And to English speaking
ears (ears don’t talk, but you know what I mean) it sounded a lot like HATE.
APART-HATE.
4.
Apartheid was pronounceable. Like Nelson
Mandela, Steve Biko, or Oliver Thambo. All these names have good
consonant-to-vowel ratios. No 7-syllable names lacking in vowels. I sometimes
wonder: What if Nelson had stuck with his real name, Rohihlahla, instead of
using his childhood nickname, Nelson? Would the songs have been quite as …. catchy? Would as many people have known his name and held to hit so symbolically?
5.
It was relatively safe and very feel-good to
protest apartheid South Africa from overseas. Of course some
activists were taken out by letter bombs, but for your average concerned member
of the public, there wasn’t really anything to worry about. Now, Al Qaeda, ISIS…
THOSE guys are scary. Who wants to organise a massive anti-Isis concert?
I probably don't really know what I'm talking about, as I say, I don't claim to be well-read on these issues. It just intrigues me. What do you think?
