Jacob Zuma
The article's focus was on humanizing Jacob Zuma. I have not followed media portrayals of Zuma in the past, but I got the idea that many news reports and articles depict Zuma as a womanizing, war-lord while others instill ideas of godliness. Douglas Foster, the author of Jacob's Ladder, speaks of the character of his children, his history as a young boy and his growth, both politically and personally. Foster forces to reader to look beyond his flaws like his alleged rape and into his character. Foster allows the reader to dismiss this rape by quoting his daughter saying, "It's only politics." Although Foster moves beyond a standard media portrayal of good or evil. He uses comfortable language and is quick to dismiss Zuma's flaws, which made me feel uncomfortable.
One assumption that Foster held was that the reader understood the politics of race in South Africa. I was curious about how economics played into class vs. how much race factored into class. How is race different from the United States? I've heard South Africa depicted as the California of Africa. In this article there is very much a different story to be told about the country. I would have liked more information about race especially politically.
Overall, I thought the writing was interesting. The personal is political and that was most definitely Foster's angle.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have to apologize! I don’t know if many people read my last response in the few hours it was online before I realized my error, but if you did please disregard it. I mistakenly replied to this post yesterday after misreading Ellen’s thoughts and having a false understanding of her opinions of the article. So, let me try again:
DeleteFirst, I want to agree with Ellen and echo her reaction that Douglas Foster assumes the reader has a good knowledge of the history and politics of race in South Africa. Maybe I am of the relatively uneducated minority, but I wanted a little more background information to establish the political, social, and historical context of Jacob Zuma’s life. On the same note, I found myself Wikipedia-ing names and acronyms used in the piece. While I don’t think the author should outline the entire life history of every player in his story, I would have appreciated a little more information about some characters, like Mbeki. As a reader who is new to a lot of the people, places and politics of this piece, it would have been easier to read and follow with just a bit more explanation of who was who. Did anyone else feel this way?
Secondly, I also want to acknowledge Foster’s writing and the way he used “comfortable language” to portray Zuma. I disagree that Foster meant to dismiss Zuma’s flaws and crimes. Rather, I think he highlights them and uses language and presentation to portray this man, Jacob Zuma, and his crimes in a way that I imagine is similar to the way he is seen in South Africa by many. Ellen said the story, and specifically the way Zuma’s crimes were almost swept aside by his political fame, made her uncomfortable. It made me feel uncomfortable as well. In this case, I think that is a hallmark of good journalism and an important story. In the light of such a story and such a man as Jacob Zuma, I think it is good for us to be uncomfortable. I think that may be exactly what Douglas Foster wanted.
I agree with you to a degree, Ellen. I was reminded of the old stereotype, about dictators 'being just the nicest people in person.' Political scientist call many African political systems charismatic democracy because their politicians are more charismatic than democratic. But I also think that's not so different from our own system, but I digress.
ReplyDeleteI wondered if Foster was conflicted by his new developed affection for this man and the things he thought he might have done. Frankly, I think he did a good job of being fair, and not removing Zuma from the African context too much. Rural zulus, cosmopolitan Afrikaners, and Midwest liberal arts students will all view the allegations against Zuma differently. Even his lifestyle, out of context, would be highly criticized in American politics. One thing that I had trouble with was his comment on blacks thinking he was innocent, and whites thinking he was guilty. Without citations this is a heavy racial and global generalization that is hard for a reader of any race to swallow.