Books LIVE

Recent comments:

• 
  Ben - Editor
  July 19th, 2010 @14:12 #
   
  
  

  When I lived in Seshego, Limpopo Province (Zone 1 4evah!), I was called "lekgowa" all the time - but not in a derogatory manner. It was more like fact-stating - and the word was spoken almost solely by children, surprised to see my weird shape in their midst.

  
  
• 
  Sally
  July 19th, 2010 @14:26 #
   
  
  

  I would have thought anything on Wikipedia is free to use?

  
  
• 
  Ben - Editor
  July 19th, 2010 @15:23 #
   
  
  

  It's certainly in the public domain; perhaps there was a citation issue... or perhaps it's a storm in a teacup.

  
  
• 
  tonyharding
  July 19th, 2010 @18:26 #
   
  
  

  Of course, this is journalism meeting nuanced writing - and they don't mix. The discussion isn't about the definition of a word - like the definition of the word in a dictionary. The context of the 'definition', which clearly it is not, is that the meaning of the word lekgowa 'felt like that to me.' There is a huge difference. The Sunday Times article was also written as a reflection on the personal meaning of the word in context. If Antjie Krog decides to appropriate an untested, and clearly (intentionally) non-scientific interpretation of the word from Wikipedia, as part of her text, giving it status that it does not have, that was a risk she chose to take.

  The professor thought I was writing a new definition for a dictionary and claiming ownership of it. That was how the journalist, bless his heart, explained the issue to him. If you ask the wrong question, then you get the wrong answer.

  
  
• 
  tonyharding
  July 19th, 2010 @18:59 #
   
  
  

  Here are a few comments that will explain why I feel very strongly, leaving the legal and other dispute aside, that Antjie Krog used my reflection of (not definition of) the word lekgowa was out of place in Begging to be Black.

  Lekgowa is about letting go of a delusion that your identity is a template for other identities, and that other identities must assimilate to your own.

  I think Krog is a brilliant writer and that Begging to be Black is very moving. She speaks for many of us, our confusion, our longing to be accepted.

  Begging to be Black is tragic, but also typical of our collective experience of challenge if we are faced with the void of dealing with fear. This is not about 'being racist', but about the power of ideology to set the rules. It is about escaping from received identity.

  The issue is not about 'imagining you are black', intellectually, which is Antjie Krog's framework, but about moving in the same space as a part of motho, our sense of common evolutionary identity. Blackness is about knowing that you are motho, and not being dispossessed of that sense by the coloniser/ whiteness. Once you are motho, even if you are white, you will find a new emotional centre, free of the pathologies of denial, which is as part of whiteness.

  Lies and deception are a defensive mechanism to avoid facing oneself, one's shadow, one's sense of a void. It is about 'hiding' what is in denial, about shame, about carrying forward the ancestral burden of shame.

  
  
• 
  tonyharding
  July 19th, 2010 @19:04 #
   
  
  

  Apologies -- ".. that Antjie Krog's use of my reflection on"..

  
  
• 
  Ben - Editor
  July 19th, 2010 @19:17 #
   
  
  

  Thanks for your comments, Tony. I might take issue with your notion that journalism and nuanced writing don't mix, but otherwise your points are conveyed.

  
  
• 
  tonyharding
  July 19th, 2010 @20:04 #
   
  
  

  Here are some words from the Preface to Lekgowa, written byProfessor Deirdre Byrne, the editor of Lekgowa:

  "The text uses the tools of autobiography, genealogy and
  sociology to explore the mechanisms by which identity is
  constructed and maintained. A central presupposition of
  Lekgowa is that identity is never fixed, but is founded on
  cultural and national myths – and that these are open to
  deconstruction. As an ostensibly white, English-speaking
  member of the Anglican Church, Tony has discovered
  that his own identity is historically shaped by lies and
  obfuscations of his ancestry, and that he is not at all who
  he once thought he was. The uncovering of his true hybrid
  identity – and the search for an authentic South African
  identity – has been a courageous project, marked by a
  number of dramatic psychological experiences.
  This is a text for South Africa in the twenty-first century,
  when the old racial identities have officially been declared
  invalid, leaving many people floundering between their
  inherited prejudices and their desire for change. As Lekgowa demonstrates, changing prejudices, beliefs and
  identities is not as simple as it seems, but is imperative for
  reconciliation to come about in South African society.
  Lekgowa sets up a dialogue with celebrated essayist
  Professor Njabulo S Ndebele’s acclaimed exploration of
  South African identities, expressed in a feature article, ‘Of
  Pretence and Protest’, published by the Mail & Guardian
  newspaper in September 2009, as well as his other texts
  focusing on white English-speaking identity.
  It stands alongside Antjie Krog’s recent text, Begging to
  be Black, as a powerful contribution to the complex and
  fraught discourse about identity in the ‘new’ South Africa."

  I hope this explains the context of my investigation of the word lekgowa - and how its meanings (explained to me by others) made me begin a journey into my own 'white identity.'

  I find obfuscations and secrets in my family story that make me realise that my white English speaking identity is far more complex that I ever could have imagined. I am lekgowa! A perfect specimen.

  For the rest of the crazy story, read the book!

  
  
• 
  Helen
  July 20th, 2010 @00:51 #
   
  
  

  What scandal? If it wasn't Krog, this would be just another scuffle over shades of grey, and nobody would care. Reminds me of those conferences where the discussants take out hatchets -- those don't make headlines. And if I didn't know Tony to be a very sincere guy, I'd suspect a marketing ploy. I guess the lesson is not to put something you feel very strongly is yours alone up on Wikipedia, which is free for all to use.

  
  
• 
  tonyharding
  July 20th, 2010 @08:56 #
   
  
  

  Helen. My friends do tell me that they are scared to use the word lekgowa in certain company now. LOL.

  The point about Wikipedia is well taken. Wikipedia is not an intellectual democracy, nor a discussion forum, which is what I thought when I put the words there, naively, in 2007, then forgetting about them. Rather like your first whipping by a school master. I know. I was whipped a lot at school.

  Of course, the Wikipedia issue is a diversion. I am sure you know the law of copyright, so there is no need to say more.

  As for the issue of use of words within the domain of the Creative Commons Deed, you take your risks....

  I am sorry I wont be at the book fair.

  
  
• 
  tonyharding
  July 20th, 2010 @09:15 #
   
  
  

  This reminds me of my favourite story of the kids in the village who taught lekgowa to say "Masepa" instead of "Dumela". So lekgowa went around happily greeting the natives. "Hello, Masepa" No wonder they called him "Lekgowa."

  (Masepa means ‘shit’)

  This is a classic joke told about whites in rural areas.

  
  
• 
  tiah
  July 20th, 2010 @12:02 #
   
  
  

  To quote a priest, "There be dragons there..." This issue is problematic that it is even an issue. And if it is to become an issue, the flux and change of language then becomes an issue, instead of a natural evolution, does it not? Which Wiki and the like are part of, an evolution of language in a public domain. Otherwise, we would then have to go back to the origins of the word and challenge the one who appropriated it in order to change and then later copyright it, thus making himself culpable to the other culture. For if language is not allowed to be in flux and shared, then the word should not have been altered in any case. In short, I don't see a winner in this if it is to become an issue. But then again, perhaps a large chunk of the problem is not being explained fully?

  
  
• 
  tonyharding
  July 20th, 2010 @21:42 #
   
  
  

  Tiah. If you ask the wrong question, you will get the wrong answer. The dictionary version of the word is safe! No-one appropriated it. There are no indigenous knowledge systems pirates in the jungle.

  (read from the top again....)

  
  
• 
  tiah
  July 21st, 2010 @07:24 #
   
  
  

  Tony, I am not disputing the fact you have changed the definition. (Or, you say, reflection - a reflection now stuck up on Wikipidia.) I started at the top and see, "It’s a definition that Tony Harding, author of the soon-to-be-released Lekgowa (self-published through New Voices), claims is his own." Your reflection caused a shift of use. You are objecting - yes? Does this objection stop the natural flux of language? This "ownership" of language, this definition that is now to be cited as yours (yes?) makes me wonder if this is truly possible. Words change. Gay no longer means what it used to mean. A blogger "Kinnered" somebody and this is now a phrase. A joke, on a blog - morphed into a word. Your "reflection" morphed due to being placed on Wiki? This is how language evolves. If language is to be prevented from naturally evolving, as in this case, where an allegedly new definition of a word becomes a law suit, then one has to beg the question if people should be allowed to appropriate the word in the first place - even for your own musing. Thus, if you win this case due to the definition you state came from you, due to a reflection - then are you opening yourself up to vulnerability of being sued for changing a word? ie Taken a word from one culture and taken it for your own use (Wikipiedia) and then claiming exclusivity on it. (Must be, to have a case - yes?) Because while you say, "There are no indigenous knowledge systems pirates in the jungle," there is still a word that is part of a language - a language that I believe is not customarily spoken by a white man. (Not that more white South Africans shouldn't learn to speak more than English and Afrikaans). The Haka was protected in New Zealand. France has also protected its language. Native Americans have also become increasing sensitive to how their traditions, symbols and language are appropriated. Obviously I am not a lawyer, but this whole thing is interesting to any writer, as it raises so many questions of what happens to language and global tools (interenet) if you win. But in the meantime, thank you for replying. The whole thing is very fascinating.

  
  
• 
  Ben - Editor
  July 21st, 2010 @22:17 #
   
  
  

  I can confirm that the passages which Harding found problematic were used in quotation marks - i.e., were marked out as not Krog's own. As Krog says in the Sunday Times piece linked to above:

  "However, Krog told the Sunday Times she had drawn the line from Wikipedia, not realising that Harding was the sole author of the Wikipedia page as well.

  ""I feel he made a mistake in putting original research on Wikipedia, which has a specific rule about posting only verified facts from multiple sources," said Krog."

  
  
• 
  tonyharding
  July 21st, 2010 @22:20 #
   
  
  

  Tiah! The Sunday Times is running 1200 words of Lekgowa with colour graphic etc on Sunday (this week). That will give a good opportunity to read and understand better. Better still, read the book.

  i am fully aware of all the issues and debates you mention, but they are not 'my issue.' Of course others may debate them.

  The promo text on the New Voices page will also help you filter out what I think are the non-issues. Of course, the book is about identity, white identity, my identity, and the deconstruction and reconstruction of identity. One of the strange things about dominant identities is that they do not realise that they are identities. They become templates for assimilation of other identities. They construct other identities as difference, but do not open themselves up for investigation. Lekgowa is a word that challenges the hegemony of white identity. When I become lekgowa I realise that the word problematises/ subverts my unspoken identity and stirs it into defence. Hence the importance of 'how the word is used, 'the sense in which it is used', its 'popular use', as against its dictionary use, is important. The book is not about how a white identity defines a word, but how a word lekgowa redefines an identity. It is a reversal of 'gaze' from the colonised to the coloniser. As you can see, the 'debate' so far is being led from the coloniser point of view - from within the unspoken white identity, the identity which habitully sets the rules for everything.

  
  
• 
  tiah
  July 22nd, 2010 @10:51 #
   
  
  

  Tony, thank you for your reply. But it seems there are two issues.

  1 - A fascinating discussion regarding identity; or, as you write it, "how a word lekgowa redefines an identity." Given that I often feel that South Africa is suffering an identity crises, and consequently my work reflects this, your book does sound right up my alley.

  2 - A law suit over plagiarism which centres around a line in Wikipedia. The book and Wikipedia cannot be the same issue, because Krog's book was published before yours, making the law suit not about the book, but how Wikipedia is used. While Wikipedia could argue that Krog should have cited them, their pages are constantly in flux (something they boast about) - hence the spirit of Wikipedia. There is also the concept of general knowledge; or, as my old teachers put it - if you find the same info in three sources, it is general knowledge - which is, if I understand correctly, why Wikipedia has their policy the way it is. Which leads me to wonder what your law suit is over? Plagiarism? Or your accidental misuse of the global tool?

  Wikipidia is unique in what it does, and what it does to truth. Stephen Colbert and his shtick over "truthiness" keeps popping into my head. Have you seen the clip?

  And if it is not about Wikipedia, then it would be wonderful to know what exactly Krog did that was wrong. Selfishly curious so the rest of us in the writing world do not make a similiar mistake.

  
  
• 
  tiah
  July 22nd, 2010 @10:52 #
   
  
  

  In the meantime, why do my paragraphs always disappear when I hit "submit"?

  
  
• 
  Ben - Editor
  July 22nd, 2010 @11:37 #
   
  
  

  tiah, you'll find that the paragraphs reappear when you refresh the page.

  
  
• 
  tiah
  July 22nd, 2010 @15:07 #
   
  
  

  Ahh, I see. Thanks Ben.

  
  
• 
  tonyharding
  August 6th, 2010 @06:44 #
   
  
  

  Braggarts, yes, but not ticks - or dogs
  Aug 1, 2010 12:00 AM | By - Solly Madikwe Mabotha, Centurion
  Solly Madikwe Mabotha,: I have been following from a rather casual standpoint what I regarded as a frolicsome debate on the origins of the term "lekgowa", a Sesotho name for a "white person" - until last Sunday. In his letter "Ticks or spit? The origins of an insult", John Shaw Diphaha commits one of the prime faux pas in language science: tactless extrapolation. Diphaha's hypothesis has no regard for existing doctrines governing the application of syntax and semantics in Sesotho in general. Syntactically, the term " kgoa " by any Sesotho language or dialect is not and cannot be a noun. As previously argued by Professor Nhlanhla Maake, " kgoa " is a verb - finish and klaar !

  Therefore "kgoa" (verb) cannot mean "tick" (noun). This then begs the question: what is the true meaning of the word "kgoa"?

  I am Mo-Pedi and my wife is Mo-Tswana and we agree that the term "kgoa" as applied in both our languages is a verb that describes the action of being boastful and mischievous, among others.

  If then (credit to Diphaha) we apply the doctrine of prefixation by adding "Le" to "kgoa", then "Le-kgoa", a term referring to a white person, is formed. It is equally true, again thanks to Diphaha, that the prefix "Le" carries a demeaning connotation such as the term "Le-kwerekwere" (foreigners often of African descent).

  But, unfortunately, this is where our similitude ends. For it is important to immediately note that the prefix principle is invariably applied only to verbs as opposed to verbs in the process of constructing descriptive nouns.

  This makes sense. If affixation of a verb serves to represent degradation and humiliation of a person, why apply the same principle to a noun if that noun may already be carrying an undignified overtone?

  For example the worst, most demeaning thing one Mosotho can call another is "mpsa" (dog), meaning someone who is considered selfish, inconsiderate, stubborn, greedy - the list is endless. Similarly, the same can be said of nouns such as "kgofa" (tick) - meaning parasite.

  I would very much like to hear the position from the Pan South African Languages Board on this matter.

  
  

Please register or log in to comment

» View comments as a forum thread and add tags in BOOK Chat