Loading...

Friday, July 8, 2011

Into the Cannibal’s Pot. Extracts from Ilana Mercer’s latest book (Part 5)



TAKE NOTE: The following extracts of this book were sourced from the Smashwords edition, where approximately 20 percent of the content can be viewed for free. Because Smashwords does not deliver the content in print form, but in various digital formats – the extracts I’ve published here will thus not reference any page numbers. Reference numbers used to indicate the author’s sources, have also been omitted. 

CHAPTER 1

Continued from here

YOUR HOME: THE ANC’S CASTLE


Because the ANC disregards the importance of private property and public order and the remedial value of punitive justice, innocent victims of crime often defend themselves in their own homes on pain of imprisonment. The Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act demand that, in the course of adjudicating cases of “private defense,” the right to life (the aggressor’s) and the right to property (the non-aggressor’s) be properly balanced. “Before you can act in self-defense,” remonstrates Anton du Plessis of the Institute for Security Studies, “the attack against you should have commenced, or at least be imminent. For example, if the thief pulls out a firearm and aims in your direction, [only] then you would be justified in using lethal force to protect your life.” In a country where, as columnist Barry Ronge noted, husbands and children are routinely forced to watch while mothers are raped, victims must now “calibrate the extent of the menace” before defending loved ones. Why, even for giving chase, victims may now be prosecuted as aggressors.

Between a rock and a hard place, to use that cliché of in- betweenness, is where Jaco Swart found himself when confronted at two o’clock in the morning with two intruders in his homestead. The twenty-six-year-old Swart hails from Delareyville, a small farming community in South Africa’s northwest. This town is named for General Koos de la Rey, hero of the Boer War. Young Swart is a hero too. But for choosing to defend home and hearth in the New South Africa, he was arrested and charged with murder and attempted murder. Swart had dispatched the one assailant and injured the other with a licensed firearm. Not only can self-defense be an offense in the new constitutional democracy, but it may be considered racist when practiced by whites. COSATU, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, under whose auspices, presumably, home invaders fall, accused Swart of racism.

The sixteen-year-old son of Len Parkin of Pretoria was awoken at three in the morning by two armed men, and instructed to lead them to where his parents slept. The boy complied. The criminals shot his father. Despite his injuries, Len Parkin seized his handgun and managed to hasten the descent into hell of the one assailant. An opprobrious police inspector, one Paul Ramaloko, said: “Because Parkin is in hospital, he hasn’t been arrested. The public prosecutor will now decide whether the victim was using his firearm in self-defense or not.”

An elderly couple—he seventy-seven, she seventy-three - may spend the rest of their days in jail for attempted murder. The plucky pair had overpowered an intruder who had grabbed their pistol and was poised to pounce. Not far from where these heroes reside live my in-laws. I used to rest easier knowing that if a thug entered their Western Cape home, my elderly mother in- law could easily dispatch him with her six-round .32 Special. It was comforting to know that in the unlikely event of her requiring further firepower, my father-in-law could weigh in with his .38 Special. But with the advent of the Firearm Control Act of 2000 (FCA) - whose constitutionality is currently being challenged - the Safety and Security Minister unveiled “an arsenal” of stricter gun-control laws, decreeing that “gun-toting cowboys” such as my elderly mother and father in-law would no longer be tolerated, and “non-threatening” home invaders would no longer face on-the-spot justice. Should my in-laws awaken to find a malefactor beating down the door, they shall have to hold their fire and attempt to ascertain his manifestly acquisitive - and almost certainly murderous - motives.

Lucky are the outlaws in the New South Africa. Less lucky are the in-laws. Their licenses, “granted under the old Arms and Ammunition Act,” were supposed to be valid for life and mandatory renewal unconstitutional.” Now, they, and each of South Africa’s three million legal gun owners, have been required, under the FCA, to re-apply for permits. If she wishes to keep her handgun, my mother-in-law will have to trundle to the only licensed gun seller in the region and, for a fat fee, acquire registration forms and a booklet, which she must study and prepare to be examined on. Once she passes the exam, she will head to the police station, where again, she will be fleeced and forced to fill in more forms that’ll be sent to the capital. There, an ANC official will decide whether she truly needs a handgun for “self-defense.” This process can take years. Kopel, Gallant and Eisen predicted that Mbeki’s FCA would outlaw ninety percent of lawfully owned firearms currently in civilian hands. Preliminary reports appear to substantiate their estimate with respect to new applicants as well.

In a country where almost everyone knows someone who has been raped, robbed, hijacked, murdered, or all of the above, the reasons the revamped SAPS gives for denying an application are: a “lack of motivation,” “your husband can protect you,” “the police will protect you,” “you are too young.” Talk about an “eff-off” attitude! The applicant must also prepare for a house call from their protectors for the purpose of inspecting the safety deposit box. Since my seventy nine-year-old infirm mother-in-law has forfeited the pleasure of this procedure - my father-in-law will soldier on - she must surrender her handgun to the police. In this way it can be sold by the notoriously corrupt officers of the law to other industrious trade union workers. For giving up her gun, she will get no official receipt or acknowledgment. If the thing is used in a crime, she’s liable. Ditto if she tampers with the mechanism to render it unusable.

As would increasingly be the case, there are those who dismiss as “right-wing scaremongering” any claim that the right to self- defense is seriously circumscribed in a country that needs it more than any other. A case in point is Professor Anthony Minnaar of the Department of Security Risk Management at UNISA, my alma mater. Placing “the perpetrator” in irons following a “shooting” in said “perpetrator’s” home, and irrespective of the circumstances, is standard -and proper - police practice, maintains Minnaar - (Email correspondence, September 25, 2009). In case you wonder, “the perpetrator” in Minnaar’s nomenclature is the proper term for a victorious victim of an assault. Besides, admonishes Minnaar, charges are, for the most, dropped. Or if the charges are imposed, they are commuted to a lesser charge such as culpable homicide with a self-defense plea. Beleaguered South Africans, however, need fewer Minnaars and more laws that exempt them from any criminal or civil liability if they are forced to use deadly force in self-defense.

Worlds away from South Africa, Americans have also been subjected to a state-orchestrated volcanic change in their society, the consequence of the unchecked flow of millions of Third World illegal immigrants into the country. As Heather Mac Donald, scholar at the Manhattan Institute, has documented in detail, the sturdy American castle is being catapulted by criminal aliens, although not yet sufficiently so as to make Americans fret over the erosion of the Castle Doctrine. However, as a number of landmark cases would suggest, “Make My Day Laws” - a favored American sobriquet for Castle Laws inspired by the Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry character - will become more important commensurate with rapidly changing demographics and the attendant spike in crime.

A man’s home is not mere property - it is his castle. In defending his home, an individual is defending a safe haven for his most cherished belongings: his person and his beloved. Someone eager to violate another’s inner sanctum will be more than willing to violate the occupant. This applies in spades to South Africa, where life is snuffed out for a cell phone or for the simple pleasure of it, and where home invasions are on the yearly rise, and frequently culminate in torture, rape and murder. Confronted with a home invader, there’s precious little a homeowner can do to divine the intentions of the intruder. This is the distinctively American subtext of the Castle Doctrine, which is unevenly applied across the U.S., despite the fact that the Second Amendment to the American Constitution affirms a natural right to self-defense (recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Heller vs. The District of Columbia).

Not that you’d know it, but South Africans have a right to live free of all forms of violence, “public” or “private” in origin.

Section 12 of their progressive Constitution protects the “Freedom and Security of the Person.” Clearly “progressive” doesn’t necessarily spell progress: Nowhere does this wordy but worthless document state whether South Africans may actually defend this most precious right. A right that can’t be defended is a right in name only - implicit in the right to life is the right to self- defense. The South African Constitution is descriptive, not prescriptive - full of pitch-perfect verbal obesities that provide little by way of legal recourse for the likes of Messrs Parkin, Swart and all the other good guys with guns.


WHO’S KILLING WHOM

“A typical white woman” is how Barack Obama flippantly dismissed the woman who had raised him with a great deal of devotion: his white maternal grandmother. Richly revealing was the way Obama tarred the late Madelyn Dunham with the taint of racism because she “once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street.” Obama’s grandma had still not acquitted herself for expressing a visceral fear rooted in the brutal reality of crime in the U.S. Eric Holder, the first African- American to hold the position of Attorney-General, seconded the commander-in-chief’s reservations about “typical” Americans. Mr. Holder has called America a nation of cowards and commanded Americans to have an honest conversation about race.

White Americans can be forgiven for cowering. The civil rights division of Holder’s Justice Department recently ordered the dismissal of one of the worst cases of voter intimidation to come before it, because, according to a Justice Department attorney, those menaced with batons, instructed to brace for The Black Man’s rule - and promised that their babies would be butchered - were “honkies” and “white whores.” These were the epithets the defendants, members of the New Black Panthers, used. They were decked up in “black berets, combat boots, battle dress pants, and rank insignia,” and had flanked the entrance to the polling location commanding brothers to kill “crackers” and their kids.

I suspect that rather than a two-way exchange about race, what Mr. Holder really craves is more of the same: a one-way “conversation,” where brothers like him, joined by the journalistic herd, talk at the errant American people - a people that harbors no racial animus and has elected a black man because they believed he was the right man.

Be that as it may, there are certain facts that will never make it into this highly colored exchange.

According to the 2005 Bureau of Justice’s Statistics (BJS) of “Homicide trends in the U.S,” blacks were seven times more likely to offend than whites. In that year, 8.8 percent of all murders were of whites by blacks; 3.2 percent of all murders were of blacks by whites. Blacks murder at a rate of 26.5 per 100,000 people; whites - whose criminality the state statistician often inflates by conflating them with Hispanics - committed 3.5 murders per 100,000. As to “Homicide Offenders by Race”: Despite blacks comprising a mere 12.3 percent of the population in the US, to whites’ 75.1 percent, in 2005, there were 10,285 black murderers to 8,350 white murderers. From the BJS’s “Prisoners on death row by race” (chart,87) it can be extrapolated that a black is 4.6 times more likely than a white to be on death row. Similarly, blacks are more likely to murder whites than the reverse. This likelihood is a trend which the BJS downplays by emphasizing the “intraracial” nature of most murders. Black-on- white murder is, moreover, increasing steadily. Not so white-on- black murder.

Still, if you publicize these unexceptional, government-crunched numbers, you run the risk of being treated as though you yourself had committed the crimes that you were reporting. Amicable race relations in the U.S. have come to depend on attaching disproportionate racial significance to the act of dangling a noose - an impolite and impolitic form of expression, admittedly, but hardly more than that. A black man beating a white man to a pulp is deemed racially neutral. Thus the affront du jour to the feelings of blacks is debated ad nauseam; felonies committed by blacks against whites are debated not at all. Accordingly, there isn’t an American who hasn’t heard of errant broadcaster Don Imus and his “nappy-headed hos” ugly utterance. There’s hardly an American who has heard of the habitual, endemic gang rape of white men by black and Hispanic prisoners in the country’s prisons.

Although black-on-white crime is more common than the reverse, the category of hate crime applies de facto to white-on- black crime. “Whitey” is invariably - and by default - viewed as the chief repository of racial malice. The establishment media, especially, have made a mockery out of real racial hatred. To listen to them, you’d think that being maligned is more hateful than being maimed or murdered. American jurists and journalists, politicians and pundits were oblivious, for the most, to the deep and dark reality buried in the hearts of the individuals who butchered twenty-one-year-old Channon Christian and twenty- three-year-old Hugh Christopher Newsom in Knoxville, Tennessee, in 2007. Five blacks - four men and a woman - anally raped Hugh, then shot him to death, wrapped his body in bedding, soaked it in gasoline and set it alight. He was the lucky one. Channon, his fair and fragile-looking friend, was repeatedly gang raped by the four men - vaginally, anally and orally. Before she died, her murderers poured a household cleaner down her throat, in an effort to cleanse away DNA. She was left to die, either from the bleeding caused “by the tearing,” or from asphyxiation. Knoxville officials would not say. She was then stuffed in a garbage can like trash. White trash.

Young, white, and poor: The savage crime against Channon and Hugh was not a statistical outlier. The Bureau of Justice Statistics issued a report, in 2005, the product of a combined effort of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCV) and the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR). Accordingly, an annual average of 191,000 hate crimes was documented since 2000. The NCV data is drawn from a 77,600-strong nationally representative sample. The UCR data is collected by 17,300 law enforcement agencies. Youngsters like Channon and Hugh were more likely than any other age group to be well represented among the reported victims. As defined by the report, “an ordinary crime becomes a hate crime when offenders choose a victim because of some characteristic - for example, race, ethnicity, or religion - and provide evidence that hate prompted them to commit the crime.”

Hate crimes are extraordinary in unexpected ways. In addition to being among the most serious crimes, NCV data shows that approximately eighty-four percent of these assaults are violent  - “a sexual assault, robbery or simple aggravated assault.”

Blacks are less likely than both whites and Hispanics to be targeted for reasons of racial hatred. A significantly higher percentage of victims of violent racial hatred say their attackers were black.

Nine out of ten of them identify their race as the reason blacks targeted them. “For victims reporting white offenders, [only] about three in ten victims cited race as a motive.” Moreover, and this is crucial, “The number of black hate crime victims was so small, that is statistically insignificant, that it precluded analysis of the race of persons who victimized them.”

So much for the libel of a racist America; Americans are not remotely racist. If anything, they are remarkably naïve about human differences - cultural or racial. Alas, as one wag said, “Any idea, plan, or purpose may be placed in the mind through repetition of thought.” Relentless propaganda, enforced by the tyranny of political correctness, helps explain why most Americans believe racism saturates their society. As they see it, in electing Barack Obama, they’ve begun to atone for their original sin.

Sexual Subjugation

The crime of rape is most certainly anything but “intraracial.” Every year, approximately 37,460 white women are raped by blacks. As the BJS’s 2005 “Criminal Victimization Statistical Tables” reveal, blacks, at 12.3 percent of the population, were responsible for thirty-six percent of the 111,490 incidents in which whites were raped. And blacks committed 100 percent of the 36,620 incidents in which blacks were raped. The legendary miscegenation of the much-maligned white male: could that be a myth too? Not one black woman or man—0.0 percent—was ravished by a Caucasian. Human Rights Watch confirms that these unidirectional victimization patterns endure behind bars. “White inmates are disproportionately targeted for abuse.” (Rape Human Rights Watch euphemizes as “sexual abuse.”) The report titled “No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons” states: “Inter-racial sexual abuse is common only to the extent that it involves white non-Hispanic prisoners being abused by African Americans or Hispanics.” “A form of revenge for white dominance of blacks in outside society” is one of the causal factors cited by Human Rights Watch for the sexual subjugation of white by black inmates. In 2008, the United Nations voted to classify rape as a “war tactic,” “a systemic means of spreading terror and encouraging displacement.” Does the designation extend to jailhouses in America, or does it apply only to hellholes in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

South African authorities, universities, and think tanks no longer provide information about victimization patterns by race of victim and offender. And while the South African Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) claims to possess such data, it would not share it with this writer unless she forked out a subscriber fee of US $1712 or US $3933. Questionnaires which are used to collect data—many of these questionnaires having been compiled by the UN—do not make provisions for obtaining such demographics.

Only Filling Their Crime Quota

Some South African advocates for criminals claim that blacks are merely filling their crime quota proportionate to their numbers in the population. In 2004, at 76.6 percent of the population, blacks committed 76.4 percent of “intimate femicides” (defined as “the killing of a female person by an intimate partner”). And they committed 68.3 percent of “non-intimate femicides”: “the killing of a woman by someone other than an intimate partner.” (That snippet came courtesy of a not-yet-binned Medical Research Council report.) Tardy whites are proving woefully inadequate to the task of filling their pro-rata crime quotas: At less than nine percent of the population, the corresponding numbers for white South Africans are 3.9 and 2.6 percent respectively. Whites underperform again with respect to incarceration rates. According to the South African Department of Correctional Services, 113,773 criminals had been sentenced as of June 2008, of whom only 2190 were white. Whites make up only 1.9 percent of the number of sentenced criminals. Weighing in with 90,013104 sentenced individuals—approximately 79.1 percent of the total number of criminals sentenced—blacks more than fill their per- population crime allotment.

The minority that dare not speak its name is on the wane. Of the approximately forty-eight million South Africans, whites number only 4.3 million; blacks more than thirty-eight million. By the estimate of the SAIRR, the white population had shrunk from 5,215,000 in 1995 to 4,374,000 in 2005. Almost a fifth. “Since 1996,” reports The New York Times, “the black population has risen to a projected 38.5 million from 31.8 million.” (Submerged in this sentence is the fact that the same population has been increasing since Europeans settled South Africa.) While the number of whites is shrinking as a percentage of the total population, their proportion among the scalded, shot, sliced and garroted is growing. Constituting less than nine percent of the population, whites nevertheless made up ten percent of the 33,513 “non-natural deaths,” recorded in 2007 by The National Injury Mortality Surveillance System, a project of the MRC and the University of South Africa, my alma mater. At around eighty percent of the population, black “Africans constituted seventy-six percent of all cases.” Are whites beings purposefully sought out by the swelling black criminal class that has turned crime into a sinecure? Is it any wonder that the most pressing problem in the lives of whites is violent crime, causing an exodus of those who’re able to leave?

As the old adage goes, “figures don’t lie but liars can figure.”

White Hot Hatred

The SAIRR categorically denies that there is a racial component to crime in South Africa. Its thinking, presumably, is that the handiwork of the demons who do the deeds described doesn’t conclusively prove white hot hatred, and that such motivation can only be properly ascertained by the administration of, say, standardized questionnaires to a representative sample of killers, with all the methodological pitfalls such tests entail. On the rare occasions that the Institute’s scholars have deigned to pair race and crime, it has been in the context of “the killing of four blacks by a white youth in Skierlik, near Swartruggens,” in the country’s northwest. Or, the “murder of a black man in 2001 by four white teenagers from the wealthy suburb of Waterkloof, in Pretoria. These statistical anomalies notwithstanding, a study conducted by the market research company Markinor for the ISS reveals: “Only thirty-two percent of all blacks questioned knew someone who was a victim of crime,” compared to sixty-six percent of Indian adults and fifty six percent of white adults. By logical extension, “there were also marked differences in feelings of safety between the race groups. Indians followed by white South Africans were least likely to feel safe.” Conversely, thirty- two percent of black South Africans were likely to know someone who made a living from crime while less than seventeen percent of Indians and just seven percent of whites said this was the case. As of June 2008, the South African Department of Correctional Services reported that 90,013 blacks had been sentenced. Conviction rates stand at a dismal eight percent. The black criminal class is thus 1.13 million strong, at least one million of whom are still at large. The SAIRR would have evinced a modicum of intellectual honesty had it argued that wealth was a confounding variable in crime: Because Indian and white South Africans tend to be wealthier than blacks, the theory runs, they are likelier than blacks to be targeted.

To counter evidence for the hue of hatred here at home, America’s own self-styled anti-racism activists will typically claim that whites make up most of the population and are therefore natural targets for crimes. The probability of a black encountering a white is simply many times the reverse, their argument goes. However, interracial encounter rates do not account for the sheer hatred manifested in the appalling attacks on white South Africans.

Similarly, they fail to explain away what was done to the white American couple from Knoxville. Or to the four whites from Wichita, Kansas, who were slain by blacks in 2000.

Probabilities belie the stalking and savaging, in 2008, of a Columbia University student at the hands of Robert Williams; he black, she white. Her nineteen-hour ordeal ended with Williams setting the twenty-three-year-old student on fire. It began with Williams raping the girl orally, vaginally, and anally, pouring bleach in her eyes, boiling water on her body, slicing her face and slitting her eyelids with a carving knife.

The American student and Daleen Pieterse, a prototypal South African victim of racial hatred, have parallel fates. And Williams and the Pieterse assailants share a modus operandi. Indeed, wealth disparities fail to explain away the sadism invested in the onslaught against white South Africans like Daleen. From the liberal Cape Argus: “Pieterse’s husband was tortured with a hot kettle, stabbed and finally strangled with shoelaces. She and her ten-year-old son were viciously assaulted with molten plastic; her calf muscle was lacerated, clothes cut off and a knife forced between her legs. Her three-year-old daughter was threatened with abduction and rape.” The Pieterses of the North-Western Cape are but one South African family among thousands; run-of- the-mill victims of black crime.

Still harder to finesse are the telltales of racial hatred seared into the mangled white bodies of over three thousand dead Afrikaner farmers. More about that in Chapter Two.

In all, no color should be given to the claim that race is not a factor in the incidence of crime in the US and in South Africa. The vulgar individualist will contend that such broad statements about aggregate group characteristics are collectivist, ergo false. He would be wrong. Generalizations, provided they are substantiated by hard evidence, not hunches, are not incorrect. Science relies on the ability to generalize to the larger population observations drawn from a representative sample. People make prudent decisions in their daily lives based on probabilities and generalities. That one chooses not to live in a particular crime- riddled county or country in no way implies that one considers all individual residents there to be criminals, only that a sensible determination has been made, based on statistically significant data, as to where scarce and precious resources—one’s life and property—are best invested.


AN EXISTENTIAL CRISIS

Whites have been told to accept their lot. Or “[to] continue to whinge until blue in the face,” as Charles Nqakula counseled those who carp about crime. Securing subjects in their lives and property has not been a priority for the ANC. South African historian Rodney Warwick believes that the state’s stout indifference does not exist in a void. Ditto the steady, anti-white venom the ANC cobra-head keeps spitting. “The de facto situation is that whites are under criminal siege explicitly because of their ‘race,’” he writes in the Cape Argus. “The black criminal collective consciousness understands whites are now ‘historical fair game.”

Warwick sees the physical vulnerability of white South Africans as flowing from a confluence of historical antecedents that have placed them in a uniquely precarious position. “The white minority,” he writes, “surrendered [its] political dominance for non-racial constitutional safeguards.” By foreswearing control over the state apparatus, whites ceded mastery over their destiny, vesting their existential survival in a political dispensation: a liberal democracy. In a needlessly optimistic assumption, whites imagined blacks too would be bound by the same political abstractions, and would relinquish race in favor of a constitutional design as an organizing principle in the society they now controlled. Having surrendered without defeat, for a tepid peace, Europeans are, moreover, particularly and uniquely vulnerable within this political dispensation because of their history on the continent. Remedial historical revisionism notwithstanding, South Africa—with its space program and skyscrapers—was not exactly the product of the people currently dismantling it. Instead, it was the creation of British and Dutch colonists and their descendants. For what they’ve achieved and acquired—and for the sins of apartheid—they are the objects of envy and racial enmity.

A chronicler of Africa, the observations of African-American journalist Keith Richburg agree with Warwick’s. Richburg believes that on the Dark Continent, tribal allegiance trumps political persuasion and envy carries the day. He cites the fate of the Tutsi—an alien, Nilotic African people, who formed a minority in Rwanda and Burundi—among the Hutu who are a Bantu people. The Hutu have always resented the tall, imposing Tutsis, who had dominated them on-and-off since the fifteenth century, and whose facial features the lovely supermodel Iman instantiates. When Hutus picked up machetes to slash to bits nearly a million of their Tutsi neighbors in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, they were, on a deeper level, contends Richburg, “slashing at their own perceived ugliness, as if destroying this thing of beauty, this thing they could never really attain, removing it from the earth forever.” Are shades of this impulse alive in the savagery inflicted on the European “settlers” of South Africa (and Zimbabwe and the Congo before them)? Who can say for sure? This much I do know: Empowering majorities in Africa has helped, not hindered, the propensity of hostile masses to exact revenge on helpless minorities.

Click here to continue reading...




Click here for the Smashwords edition – available in various digital formats. 
Ebook Price is currently $8.99 USD

Order the print version of this book from Amazon.com or Kalahari.net

0 comments :

Latest 5 Featured Posts:

Operation Vula, its Secret Safari, and Zuma’s band of comrades - Dec. 2013
During 1986 the ANC launched an underground operation called Operation Vula. A lesser-known fact is that it continued to operate after Nelson Mandela's release in February 1990, and for three years after his speech in August 1990 when he reiterated the total commitment of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe and the SACP to the Groote Schuur Minute.

Heritage Day Photographs (Voortrekker Monument) - Sept. 2013
This posting includes a few photographs taken on Heritage Day 2013. The posting introduces an unusual but beautiful new structure called QUO VADIS? (with the question mark) which I’m sure many readers have never heard of.

The Yellow-Bucket Marula Tree: A Mystery Solved! - Oct. 2013
I came across a rather strange phenomenon one day while travelling along the R561 route between Tolwe and Baltimore in the Limpopo province of South Africa. A small yellow bucket was attached high-up in a branch of a Marula tree, hence the name of this posting. It’s a real funny story which I’m sure most readers will enjoy - as much as I enjoyed compiling the article  - (with illustrations).

Pretoria’s Monument for Victims of Terrorism - July 2013
Many people (including myself) had almost forgotten about a noteworthy monument in Pretoria that stood at the entrance of the old Munitoria building on the corner of Van der Walt and Vermeulen Streets (now renamed Lilian Ngoyi and Madiba Streets). When the Munitoria building was demolished on 7 July 2013 nobody could tell me whether the monument was still standing or not, so I decided to go look for myself.

Remembering The Battle of Delville Wood - July 2013
14 July marks a day when the South African 1st Infantry Brigade got engaged in the 1916 (WW1) Battle of the Somme, in France. The battle was one of the largest of World War I, in which more than a million men were wounded or killed, making it one of humanity's bloodiest battles. One specific encounter during this battle, known as The Battle of Delville Wood, is of particular importance to South Africa. The posting includes a comprehensive article (with pictures) compiled and written by Petros Kondos.


Blog Feeds - Sister Blogs:

African Countries (Alphabetical list):
(The links will redirect to the Amazon.com page dealing with the specific country.)




JKLS AFRICA



Browse Books By Category