Freedom broke an oppressive ceiling so all South Africans can soar

What does freedom mean to South Africans? For the previously disadvantaged it means political rights; participation in the rights and privileges of their country of birth; and that they can lift up their heads and look the world squarely in the eyes as equals.

For the previously advantaged it implies that they must share their previous exclusive privileges with the majority of our citizens; and that they can slowly overcome the feelings of guilt and over time also can look the world squarely in the eyes.

But it also brings about new responsibilities for all South Africans.

The previously disadvantaged must not squander their newfound political power by power grabs, corruption and bad management; and they must build our country in an inclusive manner.

The previously advantaged must realise that they have a special responsibility to help build the new South Africa and to eradicate the backlogs of the past; and that they need to show a degree of humility in their criticism of the less privileged.

Despite multiple challenges, we are better off than 30 years ago. We have political plurality and integrated parties where you can find a political home that suits your convictions; we have a diversified economy that allows room to find your niche; we have excellent schools and universities where learners can build their dreams together; on the sports field the rainbow nation rightly walks proud; and in the workplace colour is no longer a glass ceiling.

Freedom removed the glass ceiling above our nation.

— Dawie Jacobs, Pretoria

Who else takes on taxi bosses?

Peter Bruce’s column last Sunday (“DA risks the race by ignoring race”) refers. People in glasshouses should not throw stones because he has not always got it right — as I recall he backed Cyril Ramaphosa in 2019.

The DA is not perfect but far better than any other party and what it offers is based on its achievements, particularly in the Western Cape, the most striking of which are job creation and standing up to the taxi bosses.

And Bruce should look at the DA’s candidate list, which is made up of competent people who are more representative of the South African population than those of any other party.

— Paul McNaughton, via e-mail

Who were the real victims?

Thabo Mokone ignores the worst victims of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and praises the man most responsible for it, Paul Kagame (“Kigali and Pretoria”, Sunday Times, April 21). Kagame, a vicious racist who despises ordinary black Africans, now presides over an economically successful, brutal, super-apartheid dictatorship.

Rwanda’s population is about 14% Tutsi, a Nilotic people, and 85% Hutu, a Bantu people. For ages the Tutsi lorded it over the Hutu, whom they despised and treated as serfs.

Rwanda was ruled by the Hutu majority. This horrified the Tutsi minority. A group of them left for Uganda, formed an army and in 1990 invaded Rwanda to take over the country. They rampaged through the country, led by Kagame. In 1994, a plane carrying the Hutu president was shot down, almost certainly on the order of Kagame. The Hutu went mad, and in their hysteria killed every Tutsi they saw. The Tutsi are better soldiers, and so beat them and took over the country. The Hutu are now their serfs.

Suppose in 1995 a white army had invaded South Africa bent on restoring white rule. Suppose it had shot down a plane carrying President Mandela. Suppose black people then went mad and killed every white person they saw. You would condemn this of course. But surely you would find some sympathy for the black majority. The Sunday Times shows no sympathy for the Hutu majority in Rwanda. — Andrew Kenny, Noordhoek

The villain of the piece

Peter Baker (“Middle East’s vicious circle”, Letters, April 21) accuses Israel of being “naïve” due to its displeasure at Iran’s missile and drone strikes. Baker seems to be quite naïve himself, as he is convinced that Israel is the primary aggressor and destabilising factor in the Middle East.

There is a huge difference between Israel retaliating against Hamas after thousands of thugs poured over Israel’s border and butchered more than 1,200 Israelis, and Iran sending a record number of missiles and drones towards Israel. Israel did not wage a war against Iran’s civilians.

Evidence points to Iran organising the October 7 massacre and controlling Hamas and Hezbollah. It is very much to blame for this current conflict. But why did it cause this war?

Israel was about to enter into diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. This would have brought peace and stability to the region. But Iran doesn’t want peace. Especially between its two biggest rivals, the Jewish state and the Sunni state. That’s why Iran backs terror groups and overthrows governments. It wants an eternally bloody and bickering Middle East that it can take over piece by piece.

Want peace in the Middle East? Oppose Iran!

— Nicholas Woode-Smith, via e-mail

Write to PO Box 1742, Saxonwold 2132;

SMS 33662; e-mail: tellus@sundaytimes.co.za.

All mail should be accompanied by a street address and daytime telephone number. The Editor reserves the right to cut letters