Xenophobic South Africans Attack Zimbabweans

Violence spreads as South Africans turn on their neighbours

GET OUT OR BE DRIVEN OUT. It was this message, delivered by a group of some 200 residents to 'foreigners' (mostly Zimbabweans) that sparked a few isolated incidents late Sunday night in the Johannesburg township of Alexandra.

A few days later, against a backdrop of violent mobs facing off against each other and the armed contingents of the South African Police, four people had died, and dozens had been injured, while scores of Zimbabwean and South Africans alike, fled to nearby police stations to escape the growing tyranny against them. Recent estimates put the number seeking security in police shelters at about 1000.

The brushfire violence spread so rapidly and apparently randomly, that some of the local inhabitants in Alexandra began to identify their nationalities by painting messages across the fronts of their shacks, or standing at their front doors with identifying documents. Groups combed one area of Alexandra (known as Extension 7) house-to-house infuriated by runors that some houses had been given to foreign nationals at the expensive of locals living in nearby shacks.

Rumor mill

The mob decided to take matters into their own hands fired up by the belief that the Zimbabweans were to blame for widespread criminality and the afflictions of unemployment. They were operating to some extent on behalf of local communities that have become crippled by poverty.

Meanwhile, a large group of Zimbabweans armed with sticks mobilised, prepared and ready to face their attackers. Some reports put this mob at about 500 strong.

Violence is spreading

Now that violence has spread to another area, Diepsloot (literally: 'Deep Drain'), and Metro police have indicated the horrifying nature of those attacks: men in several pick-up trucks driving in the night and firing a hail of bullets on Diepsloot residents.

Some South African voices have condemned the attacks, including Blade Nzimande (from South Africa's Communist party) and even Winnie Mandela. Nelson Mandela himself made a rare statement, reminding South Africans of their hard-won freedoms, and cautioning against acts of 'divisiveness'. Other leaders called the xenophobia 'shameful' and 'disgraceful'. South Africa's President (Thabo Mbeki) and President-in-waiting (Jacob Zuma) have remained eerily silent on the issue.

Back to the bad old days

The front pages of newspapers this week have harked back to the bad old days of Apartheid, with headlines like ALEX DOOR-TO-DOOR PURGE, FEAR AND LOATHING IN ALEX and POLITICIANS DITHER AS VIOLENCE SPREADS. Pictures of black faces covered in shining red blood, and policemen captured with guns blazing were eerily remininicent of South Africa's racist past. In a recent television bulletin, a police superintendant warned that if the police were targetted, 'real bullets' would be used to defend themselves.

The local MEC for safety and Security, Firoz Cachalia, has described the incidents as 'not just xenophobia', citing a criminal element that is taking advantage of the hysteria. Other reports suggest a 'third force' has been behind the attacks. The South African Human Rights commission cited the government's lack of response to illegal immigrants, poverty and emergent xenophobia as contributing to these elevated levels of civil strife.

So far 66 people in Alexandra have been arrested for their part in the violence.

Racism 101

I see someone spent 28 minutes on this blog in the last couple of days studying up on everything I have written about racism. Intwisting. There's also a major investment in 'doom and gloom'. I wonder, did you find what you are looking for? Did you find some dirt, because I know there is someone who is definitely digging, and I know why they feel they have to do this. How it works is when you can't find anything in the real world, you start digging in someone's own personal archives, and that becomes your little court case. Hey, good luck with that.

I do have a question though. What do you call someone who accuses someone else of racism or discrimination (and they honestly believe their accusations are true) except they happen to be wrong? I'm thinking it's self-righteous arrogance, or purism or something. I'm not sure exactly what it is but I do know it disgusts me. It is actually worse than racism itself, because it is based once again on the belief that your standards (the way you treat and appraise people) is better, and thus the object of your disdain, is evaluated prejudicially. That is the point. This is very interesting, because it amounts to intellectual elitism. It might sound nice, a nice thing to be accused of. Think so? Well intellectual elitism begets Nazism, and it's based on the idea that you are - through your thinking, philosophy, whatever, you're essentially 'us', and they (who you don't agree with or can't understand) are 'them'. It is all based on the same ego-threatened idiocy that racism is based on. Except that it's based entirely on a fictionalised construct, a fantasy, that you the observer, the judge, is somehow more intellectually acceptable.

Frankly, it sickens me.

One Racist Comment And You're Gone

I'm frequently told I must have one of the best jobs in journalism. When I first heard this I naturally assumed people were referring to my licence to upset politicians every Sunday morning and get paid for the privilege. Then I realised that it was motoring journalism they were talking about. I suppose on the surface it does look like fun.

Empire, Run out of gas - by David Bullard. First published 4 February 2008

NVDL: There is speculation that this article is the real thorn in the Sunday Times' side. If you notice the libterties taken about boardroom comments made, it is the Llewellyn Kriel thing all over again. Never write about what happens inside the walls of work, unless you're pretty happy to start working somewhere else. Bullard will be writing for The Star from now on - that's the rumour doing the rounds anyway.

Will racist tag stick to Bullard?

David Bullard has been Fired

I heard this on 94.7, and I heard John Robbie speaking to the ST editor, and the gist is that David is a racist and that his latest column Uncolonised Africa wouldn’t know what it was missing is to blame.

I have interviewed David Bullard at length. The cigar and whiskey props are contrivances to support a snooty, highbrow image, but some of it is tongue in cheek (and there is a lot of cheek as we all know and expect).

I'm not going to comment on the article. It speaks for itself, and many will agree it is not one of David's best. I think Llewellyn Kriel's blog stepped over a line in terms of the things one would say if you were talking directly to a person your writing addresses (say, in their lounge). My question would just be, if David was in the lounge of his bosses, would he have been happy to read out his column and have a happy debate afterwards?

The other thing to point out is the 'racism' label. Most of us know for certain who racists are. Racists tend to be pretty obvious in their racism. They are bitter, spiteful, nasty and obviously biased. They have big chips on their shoulders, sometimes for good reasons. They use demeaning terms on a regular basis, they keep reinforcing their opinion with supporting evidence, there is a pattern. They tell a lot of a certain kind of joke and anecdotes are all a certain kind of biased, stereotypical story. I did have a sense that David's column has become darker and more brooding (more negative of late), but so has sentiment in this country, especially with what has happened in Zimbabwe.

There is a saying - one swallow doesn't make a summer, and I think the 'racism' label is applied sometimes to indict a person for a single or a few (possibly significant) offence/s. But that doesn't make someone a racist. There's a difference between a racist remark and someone who is a self-confessed racist (or even a racist in hiding). A lot of South Africans, I believe, despite plenty of supporting evidence on both sides, are very careful not to be racist, they endeavour to ignore a lot of negative signals (on both sides of the dotted line).

If I make a racist remark, does that mean I am a racist? If a mini bus taxi turns in front of me and a swear at them, and the next thing a Mercedes with some white idiot does the same thing, and I use equally shitty language on both, is one any different from the other?

As I say, racism is part of a pattern, and people can often see from a mile away what one's philosophy is. Is David Bullard a racist? If he is, it has taken 14 years to make this discovery, and it is happening around the time Presidents are a-changing.

Clinton accused of being ‘turbanator’

Hillary Clinton has been accused of playing dirty, after a photograph of Barack Obama in a turban was circulated on the Internet.
US reports speculate that the picture, of Obama in traditional Somali garments during a 2006 visit to northern Kenya, near the Somali border, was leaked by “Clinton staffers”.

More.

NVDL: Is Clinton also a spurned girlfriend I wonder...

UFS: Varsity workers fed meat with urine (VIDEO)

A video of University of the Free State (UFS) employees on their knees eating meat which had been urinated on was condemned “in the strongest possible terms” by the university yesterday.
The video, made by the Reitz men’s residence, surfaced yesterday morning and follows riots by the students at the campus last week over the university’s hostel integration policy.

“The Executive Management (EM) of the UFS condemns this video in the strongest possible terms as a gross violation of the human dignity of the workers involved,” the university said.

For the rest of this article from Sowetan online, go here.

Volksblad: 'n RASSEBOM het gister op die kampus van die Universiteit van die Vrystaat (UV) in Bloemfontein ontplof. (Click here for Video)

NVDL: Big shit is happening on that campus. I should know, I was there. The Afrikaners feel like they have had to give up everything, all their traditions, even where they live on campus. Lots of angry people.

Let's All Get Dekaffirnated

Pieter Dirk Uys coined this term - it was the title of one of his shows at the Tricycle Theatre in London (click here if you don't believe me) in circa 1999. It was an excellent show of course, Uys made some excellent points on the subject... and you know Uys' wit was still ringing in my head when I went to work Monday morning (this was at Canary Wharf, London's Sandton City).

So I'd been emailing this South African who was working in the building - a sort've business email led to "Oh, you're also a South African". But after about 6 weeks of her cancelling lunch dates at the last moment I started to get gatvol. Jeepers. I am a South African working in the same building as you. I'm new, you're not, let's gesels, and hey, it might be a nice way to experience lunch far from home every once in a while. Because her excuses were so pathetic and because I was about to finish my contract, I started to realise she was totally taking the piss. I had been sincere, and I got the feeling she was stringing me along intentionally for the entertainment of her colleagues (maybe she wasn't, but it sure felt like she was).

So towards the end of my tenure, and my tenure I think was ending in part because my VISA was finally approaching the 2x365 days limit, I sent her an email, and I couldn't resist putting these words in the subject field:
"GET DEKAFFIRNATED"
My meaning was pretty clear. Sort out your KAK attitude towards other people. She was a white girl - need I say - and she wasted no time circulating this email (which I'd sent on my last day) to everyone in London. I had to make apologies to, let's see, her, my boss, the recruitment agency, John Major, Harry Potter and a small dog that was running around the office who happened to look up at the computer screen. (Okay, I'm exaggerating slightly, it was just a puppy).

It was an interesting scenario though. It shows just to what extent the Ka...er...K-word is ABSOLUTELY verboten, even beyond these shores. But let me ask you though, seriously, if you're black person, and especially a South African black person and you hear a white South African person say to another white South African person: "Hey, get dekaffirnated for God's sake," isn't this one of the best possible things one white South African can say to another white South African? Hmm? Exactly! Get Dekaffirnated!

I've travelled through Germany and if you want to hear a pin drop, whisper any of these words in a bus, subway train or on the trading floor of the Franfurt DAX:
Nazi, Hitler, Second World War, Auchwitz, Holocaust.
In Ireland, whisper the word 'Roman Catholic' or 'Protestant' to a classroom of kids, and you'll get a chilly silence. Then duck, and get ready to pack your bags if you want to see tomorrow.

Ironically, a lot of people in other countries - I've found - who like South Africans, think it's cool to break the ice by making jokes where the K word is sprinkled liberally. In Korea a Kiwi (who was half white, half Maori, and three quarters a nutter) would dedicate 90% of total talking time to making racist remarks. I told him quite a few times: "Dude. The lesson we learnt in South Africa is that racism is fucked up. So your racist jokes aren't hitting any target market here. Get it? Got it?" He must have been addicted, he couldn't stop, and he was the only one laughing. Yet he married a Philippino woman (there was some arrangement to send some money to her family every month) and he took huge offence if anyone made some sort of disparaging remark about her. Koo koo.

Where am I going with this? Well, when people get emotional - and let's face it, sometimes a single ugly word can trigger a lot of eina - it's easy to lose focus. When I said to that white women 'Get Dekaffirnated' I was actually referring to my own private mental construct. Granted, if you didn't know Pieter was performing in London (or what his show was about), maybe you'd be allowed a little extra leverage in terms of eyebrow raising. Even so, I think I'm entitled to a little leverage too, well, not leverage, just an opportunity to explain what I meant.
I meant: Sort out your shit. You've behaved like a shit, stop doing that.

Instead she used all the dirt that is associated with the K-word and flung the mud at me. There was so much mud at least I knew my message had gotten through to her, which is sometimes the real reason we outsource our English. The risk when using trigger rich language is that the failure to listen may be enhanced even more. The lesson then is the same as it always was: rather stick to ordinary english. Chances are everyone will understand you better.

Postscript: I met with PD Uys the following year. We asked him to be our spokesmen for an Akrikaans condom campaign (Afrikaners is Plesierig) and during our meeting I related this story to him to obvious amusement.

Skokgolwe oor die hoofkampus (VOLKSBLAD)

DIE nuus dat 22 van die 23 koshuise van die Vrystaatse Universiteit (UV), insluitend stadskoshuise, se huiskomitees uit protes uit hul koshuise getrek het, het gister skokgolwe oor die hoofkampus in Bloemfontein gestuur.

Luidens ’n brief van dié huiskomiteelede het dié protesaksie hoofsaaklik te doen met die inwerkingstelling van die integrasiebeleid.

Die UV-bestuur het verlede jaar bekend gemaak dat wit en swart studente van vanjaar af persentasiegewys in geïntegreerde koshuise geplaas sal word.

By Henry Cloete

More.

Kunstler: Race Doesn't Matter

It does and it doesn't.

It matters that a partly African-American man is being taken seriously as a candidate for president. I am not being facetious when I say it would be uplifting for the American public to elect someone for the content of his character. Mr. Obama's character seems at least as good as any president I've seen in action.

I'm not sure how much it would really matter geopolitically, but it would seem advantageous if the US were represented on the world stage by someone with whom people in other nations could identify. It would surely entitle America to some claim of authentic moral high ground -- of real fidelity to our stated principles of fairness -- at a time when our national credibility is in a slough.

I'm satisfied that Mr. Obama is comfortable with his own persona. he doesn't appear to be either hung up on his racial background or disregardful of its subtler meanings. Of course in a better world, where the old "one drop rule" didn't apply (the mentality that one drop of black blood makes someone "black"), Mr. Obama would would be justified in calling himself black or white. In any case, his own apparent comfort has allowed other Americans to feel comfortable with him, and about the better angels of our nature as a people.

Lately, I have been reading Niall Ferguson's history of World War Two (War of the World). Though I have heard, seen, and read other versions of the story a zillion times, Ferguson freshly emphasizes the importance of the racialist ideas that motivated both the German Nazis and the Japanese in launching the war. These ideas appear in hindsight to be utterly insane, and the cruelty and carnage that grew out of them was so exorbitant that it comes close to negating any claim the human race ever might have made previously, through twenty-five-hundred years of history, to a moral standing above the dogs and crocodiles. The behavior of the Nazis themselves was bad enough, but they somehow managed to inspire nearly every other European nation, or ethnic group, or pseudo ethnic group to behavior so grotesque that one truly wonders how these groups recovered their bearings later on in the 20th century. Their demoralization should have been complete. Instead of just Herman Goring committing suicide in his jail cell at Nuremberg in 1945, one concludes after reading Ferguson, all German survivors of the Third Reich should have just marched off a cliff somewhere. The Japanese treatment of the Chinese, Malays, and every other Asian sub-group wasn't any better.

The world can't afford to repeat that kind of thing again. But the world is heading into a stressful situation that could provoke another wave of worldwide conflict -- not to mention the kind of internal conflicts that induce ethnic cleansings and genocides within nations. So, from my point of view, the further America removes itself explicitly from a collective racialist mentality, the better off we would be. But there is a catch: if perhaps Mr. Obama wins the Democratic Party's nomination, and goes on to win the White House, and the nation enters the socioeconomic convulsions I call The Long Emergency, and Mr. Obama is overwhelmed by its overwhelming problems... would he be singled out for blame? Surely there will be a lot of finger-pointing and scapegoating. Would Barack Obama become a tragic figure? The answer may be that anyone who occupies that office during the next term could end up a tragic figure.

Anyway, Hillary was back out on the stump yesterday, in the pulpit of a black Baptist church in Memphis, sounding as phony as the day is long, and it was just gratifying to know that she had just been soundly beaten. She sounded and looked discouraged, her voice lingering in that lower-register monotone that makes her come off like a regional director of the State Department of Motor Vehicles. Mr. Edwards, who I have supported and continue to support, could not shake the look of a whipped dog, too, after losing badly in his birth state. But he swore to continue on further through the primaries, and his pluck seemed genuine enough.

The night before, when the returns in South Carolina were final, Mr. Obama made a speech before his supporters, who were chanting "race doesn't matter! race doesn't matter!" as if to convince themselves as much as the TV viewing audience. The higher truth might be that it would matter if it didn't matter. But it does in many ways.

The winning candidate concluded his remarks that night by invoking the slogan "Yes we can!" It was stirring to hear, and of course it projected the simple message that his campaign would remain "positive," in the current popular therapeutic sense. But at some point, Mr. Obama will have to rise above the platitudes and generalities and answer some questions as to yes we can... do... what....? The candidates all yammer about "change," but I suspect they don't quite know how much change this nation is really in for.

Springboks: How To Tackle The Bullshitters

It would be wonderful if we could pretend that the Nation Building that the Springbok World Cup Win brought about was ever going to last. That failure is not, I believe, thanks to the people on the ground, but those on their pedestals. They rubbed their hands, these political hijackers, smelling money, smelling another opportunity to play the race card, and to surf it for all its worth.

This is about hijacking rugby's Money & Power Pot. It's an ego trip. And why not? Why shouldn't they hijack SA rugby? Why shouldn't they annex the Boks, install their own coaches, and go waltzing around the world, wearing their green rugby jerseys, high fives all the way. Why not? because it's not going to happen boet, and it's not going to happen because we the Real Rugby Loving Masses aren't going to LET it happen. Who gave them permission to ride rough shod over our team, to cash in our winners and trade them in for a sort of experimental Red Rover Red Rover. This is still our game, it belongs to the people, it belongs to us, not to a bunch of scratching, spiteful politicians and their handful of moth eaten union puppets.

If you've been to any of the Currie Cup games you'll know what I'm talking about when I say black people in South Africa don't watch rugby. They watch soccer. Until the Boks won the world cup and it became part of the national zeitgeist, they really didn't care about the game. If they do care about the sport - and I'm sure some do - they don't do it in the grandstands, and they certainly didn't before the Boks won the rugby world cup. But did they ever?

Many newspapers make the subtle claim that suddenly when the Boks had captured what might be called a worldwide audience, certain influential black men donned springbok jerseys. Very very interesting Peterrr.

I am sure there are exceptions. I'm sure a few chaps in the Eastern Cape dig the sport, always did, and always will. In the same way I am sure there are a few (maybe four) white people who go to the PSL games wearing Kaizer Chiefs or Pirates shirts. I dunno. I don't. SA soccer's not my thing. It may or may not change closer to the world cup. The people who do go to those soccer games, did you ever see whities in the stadium? Cos I specifically looked when I was in Bloem and I swear I didn't see a single black face in the orange crowd (but a few on the field). And that's fine. We like Kabamba. He has a good attitude. He's a workhorse. Is he a Bok? No, like Jake said, he's not heavy enough. And that's how it works. You earn your place. That said, Floors is a damn fine Cheetah.

Moving right along...if we're going to play Quota Quota I actually like the idea of a Barbarian side, an All White South Africa team to test our own All Black team. See the argument from some black South Africans is that we're intentionally blocking the way forward for wannabe black springboks. People who love the game know that is crap. If this were true, the likes of Bryan Habana would not be in the team. Anyone can see that everyone wants the Boks to win, no matter who is wearing the jersey.

But the powers insist that they want a Black Bok team, with a Black Victor Matfield, and a black Os, so let's keep a 'White' team on standby. We can have both teams play each other from time to time, and then choose the best players from both teams (that's really code for still choosing all the black players).
Okay so since that remains a futile experiment, let's take a leaf out of a couple of expats and other hardcore supporters' books in New Zealand (I mean, you keep hearing those two words, don't you, All Blacks...).

The Big Idea

The idea is based on historical precedent. Once upon a time, the Springboks were banned for being a racist team from a racist country. I think that needs to happen again. The new All Black Springboks can start their training etc, but then I'd like to call all lovers of rugby to effectively ban them.

How this blacklisting would work is, effectively, South African supporters would simply stop going to the stadiums, stop buying tickets. Stay at home, and when the Boks (aka The Losers) jog onto the field, let's tune into Survivor or Idols. That's as close to Reality Rugby as we're gonna get. A ticket-buying public is the bread and butter of SARU, and if they want a representative side, then let those this side represent, pitch up at the stadiums, win or lose as they say, and pay for a fine display of political scrummaging (I suppose you could watch Parliament TV for more exciting passing of the Bucks).

We can leave it to the rest of the world to entertain the charade that the Springboks will eventually become, but I'd suggest a blanket ban. Fair's fair. Perhaps in time, the shame and humiliation will be enough for the game to be given back to itself. I fear though, from here on out, it will never be the same again. Perhaps if those who take over get burnt and embarassed quickly and severely, there will be a u-turn. Once again, common sense has never been a strong point in South African politics, whether in sport or anywhere else. Isn't it a tremendous pity to lose the winning momentum that took so many years for the guys to develop?

More on this topic:
Those little White lies
Meyer looks set to leave Bulls for Boks

Blacks Less Intelligent Than Whites – J. Watson

NVDL: I'm not sure if it is particularly helpful to rank races according to intelligence. I have a shortlist on this blog titled: How to be unhappy, and comparing yourself constantly (favorably or otherwise) to others features prominently in this respect.
But if you want to insist on being superior; wanting to stroke your own ego, BEWARE. 'They' say that the Indians and Asians are smarter than whites, and the Jews smarter still. Whether that's true or not is less important than this: what sets one individual apart from another, is his or her ability to conceive, to imagine - and to imagine not what our limits might be, but our common potential for excellence.

Imagine

When we imagine - for ourselves and our communities - a scenario that is affirming for one and for all, then that is a higher wisdom, perhaps the highest wisdom, no matter who it comes from. Mandela epitomises this. Intelligence without context is very narrow minded. Wisdom is inspired intelligence, illuminated by the concepts of context and community, and restrained by logic.

From Javno.com:
James Watson claims scientists could set apart the genes responsible for differences in intelligence in some ten years.

One of the most prominent scientists in the world caused public outrage with his claim that members of the black race are less intelligent than whites.

James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for his discovery of the structure of DNA, was condemned by the public for his comments that preceded his arrival to Great Britain.

Dr. Watson heads one of the most advanced scientific institutes in the United States. He made the claims that stirred public outrage in an interview for The Sunday Times.

The 79-year-old geneticist expressed great concern and scepticism towards Africa’s progress.
All our social policy is based on the presumption that their intelligence is equal to ours and all the tests show that that is not the case – Watson said.

He said he had hoped that all people were equal, but was countered by employers who have black employees and who claim that this is simply not the case.

Watson claims that scientists could discover the genes responsible for the differences in intelligence in some ten years’ time.

There is no sound reason to believe that the intellectual capacity of people who evolved separately by geography was developed equally, Watson said in his new book published this week.

Our wishes for the equality of all people and the need for the creation of a universal human heritage will not be sufficient to prove this scientifically, he added.

The commission for equality and human rights is currently evaluating Watson’s claims.

James Watson is on a tour of Great Britain promoting his latest book, Daily Mail reports.

Survivor Cook Islands

Will racially segregating the contestants have long term social implications?

There's a scene in one of the Pet Detective movies where Jim Carrey emerges, soaked, from a bathroom and proclaims loudly: "Do NOT go in there."

I say the same for the Survivor website (http://www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor13/) If you do you will immediately see who the winner is.

But others may be inclined to want to give the whole show a miss. After seeing the first episode this week, I'm inclined to think it's going to be just as addictive and exciting as previous Survivors.

In the first episode we saw 20 survivors jumping off an old wooden Jan Van Riebeeck type sailboat. They then paddled on color coded (appropriately enough) rafts to their respective islands.

Interestingly, there are 4 racial groups represented here: Asians, Hispanics, Caucasians and African Americans. More intriguing is that the 'white' and 'black' teams each have fewer men, just 2, to 3 women. The reverse is true of the other two teams. This could suggest (brief eye roll) an initial superiority could develop in those teams with more men (when sheer strength and athleticism is an important factor).

In the first episode there was already some abrasiveness. One of the Caucasian tribe members, Jonathan (a writer, producer and in fact an actor) 'inadvertantly' took one of the chickens that had been earmarked for the African American tribe. This might have been incidental in the scheme of things, as someone let both chickens fly the coop and disappear - uneaten - into the forest, except the African American tribe came last in the first challenge.

Coming last meant tribal council, but it also entitled the losing tribe to select an individual who would be banished, forthwith, to Exile Island. Thus the two black men quickly decided to send Jonathan to Exile Ssland. Shortly after, the 3 women in the African American tribe voted off Sekou, one of only two men on their tribe.

In an interesting aside, the Asian tribe (who also comfortably won the first challenge)demonstrated an interesting headache cure. Vietnamese hippi Cao Boi performed a bizarre face pinching ritual, which left a strange red blotch on his protege's face. His westernised cohorts thought it a bizarre treatment, but Brad (I think) did say that the headache had disappeared. Having been to Korea, I've seen similar strange cures being applied (needles under fingernails to cure stomachaches) with similar success.

So it is interesting to notice the cultural variations and cultural personalities, and how these differ from tribe to tribe. Will audiences take these to heart and will stereotypes be engendered? Unlikely. At worst people will merely be conscious of their own predispositions, and notice how these 'survive' in the context of the show. Even the host, Jeff Probst says he was 'uncomfortable' promoting a racially segregated cast. He has defended the idea though, saying that after 13 seasons the idea is to try different ideas to make things more interesting. Most reasonable people will probably see and appreciate the entertainment value in that, without focussing on anything else.

Beyond the antics on the islands, the show, and its contestants, has gained controversy from the word go. The majority of the cast are real actors who were recruited (they did not volunteer or turn up as in previous seasons). Another member of the cast, 30 year old JP Calderon, after being offered a modelling contract at a gay magazine called Instinct (after the show had ended), decided to come out of the closet. And Mexican Ozzy Lusth was filmed having sex with two women on a Playboy TV show called Foursome, before his appearance on Survivor. There's more but let's not go there.

Suffice it to say, a controversial show tends to interesting, but this is not always the case. General Motors, the sponsor, didn't feel this would be the case and pulled out. We shall have to see for ourselves, won't we?