I am going through newly recovered boxes of Rhoda Kadalie's papers, as I continue to tinker with the manuscript of her biography. Among the files, I found a collection of papers belonging to the late Professor Anthony Holiday, a philosopher who was a close friend of Rhoda's and -- in her description, and probably his -- a guttersnipe of the most esteemed sort. He served a prison term during apartheid for his role in the Communist Party, but later renounced communism, saying that he had "left the community of closed ideas."
He also had "friends in low places" -- the drug dens and brothels and the rest of it -- and therefore had lots of political dirt, which he exploited to the full to gain inside accounts of what was going on in the new South African government.
Anyway -- few others reckoned quite so deeply with the paradoxes of South African life, and the clash between left-wing idealism and reality. He wasn't always on target -- he had really hackneyed ideas about Israel, and suggested (perhaps tongue-in-cheek?) that local Zionist groups be banned. I wrote a very strident response to the local newspaper about that, when he made the case in an op-ed. How could a banned former communist want anyone banned? Nobody's perfect.
Anyway, in a paper on "The Idea of an African University," given in Cape Town in November 2001, he concluded:
"To achieve this recovery of what colonialism and slavery have interred, a generation of artists, historians, scientists and philosopher[s] that is growing up among us must brave the twin dangers of scientism disguised as science, on the one hand, and superstition parading as African religion on the other. It will have to endure the cynical mockery of Eurocentric skeptics as well as the accusations of disloyalty which Africanist ideologues are bound to heap on it. Above all, this generation of seekers will have to withstand the dark night of intellectual loneliness which travelers towards goals of this sort must inevitably traverse. It will find no companions among the politically orthodox. But there may be those from other cultures, spaces and times, who will join the pilgrimage and, whatever its perils, not betray it."
"[T]he dark night of intellectual loneliness" -- I can relate to that, lately. So could Rhoda.
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
An interesting weekend -- one of the last of Daylight Savings Time -- in which there is much to celebrate, much to contemplate, and a bit to worry about.
The Gaza peace deal is shaky, but holding, after the living hostages returned; the shutdown is still going on, with no end in sight; the China trade war is heating up; and the confrontation with Venezuela continues to escalate.
The "No Kings" protest was a dud, despite the media's attempt to inflate it. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have basically stolen the rhetoric and the imagery of the Tea Party protests, circa 2009. They claim they are defending the Constitution -- just like the Tea Party did.
On the one hand, this is good. How wonderful to have a political system in which both sides, bitterly opposed though they are, articulate differences through the Constitution -- and not, as in so many other countries, outside it.
On the other, this is sheer hypocrisy for the Democrats. Not only did they malign the Tea Party as ...
