Can a woman and a man be friends and nothing more? No sexual benefits?

A couple of years back whilst I was still a student at the University of Swaziland I had friends; all male. Four! At some point I, together with all my friends, became friends with a very beautiful lady, also a student at the university. We were true friends with her. For simplicity purposes, let us refer to our female friend as Sibo. So it was five men and one woman; one great group of friends.

Sibo had her boyfriend with whom at some point they had a daughter. The boyfriend was not a friend to us, and neither was he in the same institution as the rest of us. We respected Sibo’s relationship with her boyfriend, and not once did we ever speak badly about the boyfriend, or even tried to suggest that she could leave him and replace him with any of us. None of that! Their relationship had unwavering support from us.

Some students believed strongly that one of us was definitely her lover, whilst some went to the extreme, suggesting that there are some “benefits” in the friendship. But then there were none such benefits.

Even in moments when only the boys were together, none ever suggested some intentions to be her lover or even to sleep with her. None! We respected her and she respected us. Of course, because this was a somewhat unique friendship (male-female), we gave her the privacy she needed whenever required, and she did the same for us. In other words, we still recognised her as a female. We did not pretend to be all of the same sex.

With that experience, whenever anyone ever asked me if it is possible for a man and a woman to be friends, and remain nothing but friends, my response was always a resounding YES! I was never in doubt.

I and my very, very close female friend…

A few years later I became friends with another lady at the university. Let us call her Funiwe. Funiwe was (and remains) HOT! A beautiful woman without a doubt.

Funiwe and I were very close friends. Sometimes we would be together in my room at the students’ residence, whilst sometimes she would request to take a nap in the room whenever she felt too tired. All was good and well. And we respected each other.

Knowing that Funiwe and I were nothing but friends, I was always puzzled by people’s deep suspicions that there was more than mere friendship between us. My previous experience of a good friendship with Sibo made the situation even more confusing, for I felt that there was nothing sinister about a man and a woman being friends. The evidence was there. I constantly asked myself how the rest of the students could fail to understand such a simple issue.

Nobody believed that we could ever be alone in one room (a room with an inviting warm bed) and do nothing but talk. So many times I got lambasted by some people for “sleeping” with her when I knew she had a boyfriend. Well, some guys even envied me. But then Funiwe and I never even kissed, let alone have sex! The only benefit was friendship, pure and simple.

Of course, in hindsight, I do understand the suspicions that Sibo and Finiwe’s men may have had with those kinds of friendships. In their boyfriends’ shoes, I would probably have felt more or less the same.

But then the plot thickens…

Let us introduce another character. We will call her Nomaswati.

For a long time Nomaswati held the same beliefs as I. She never at any point questioned her man’s friendship with other women. Her boyfriend, Nkosephayo, was more comfortable with having female friends than males, at least according to what Nomaswati knew anyway. She was at peace with that and, notwithstanding their distant relationship, she trusted him fully. Of course, at first she doubted the whole “just friends” story, but with time she became comfortable with the friendship.

At some point in their sweet unbreakable relationship, Nkosephayo introduced Nomaswati to one of his female friends, Thanda, and she was happy to meet her. They even received a wonderful gift from Thanda at some point, with her wishing them a long wonderful relationship filled with nothing but love. Oh what a sweet, loving and supporting family friend!

Sometime later, however, Nomaswati would stumble upon some information that on a certain night Nkosephayo had a visit from Thanda, the same female friend who had been introduced to Nomaswati. The two (Nkosephayo and female friend Thanda) had spent the whole night in Nkosephayo’s one-room flat. It appeared from this new information that in fact this night was not the first. But there was more. Nkosephayo and Thanda (female friend) had shared the room and bed, and were even comfortable taking a bath in front of each other. They went to clubs together. And so and so forth and stuff like that…

In Nomaswati’s conceptualisation of the unwritten rules relating to friendship between people of opposite sexes, this definitely amounted to crossing the line.

It is probably important to mention, in passing, that, after this unfortunate discovery, Nomaswati destroyed the gift they had received from that female friend, and that she and Nkesephayo are no longer in a relationship. Their only link today is the history they share, especially their son. Please do not ask me about their unending fights. We will talk about them some other day.

My reflection – Can a male and a female be friends and remain nothing but friends?

After my personal experiences, comparing them with other people’s experiences like the Nomaswati-Nkosephayo experience, I am in doubt today whether my response to this question would still be a resounding “yes”. After seeing friendships escalate to “friends with benefits” and some friendships evolving to full relationships, I am left disillusioned.

Despite the above, however, I still have some belief that it is possible that two people of different sexes can be real friends. For these two people to remain friends, however, they need to remember that just because they are friends does not mean that their bodies can never warm to each other. Respecting each other’s privacy and each other’s relationships is important. Otherwise one thing may lead to another, thus destroying good relationships and families in some cases. In other words, boundaries must be set and respected.

Some friends, unfortunately, neglect to set these boundaries, however. The result is two people who probably started as genuine friends slowly getting closer to each other to the point that one (or both) begins to feel that there is hope for more than just a friendship. Speaking of boundaries, I do not think that we would all agree on the measurement of boundaries.

Therefore, the question “Can a woman and a man be friends and nothing more?” will probably never attract a unanimous response from people. The majority of opinions would most definitely be subjective. All will depend on the specific experiences of each individual.

Also read: Pudemo will NOT contest Swaziland's 2018 tinkhundla elections!

Also read: Male gender activists are gays, softies, players?

History of the Bulhoek Massacre*

In 1912 Enoch Mgjimia, a lay preacher and independent evangelist, broke away from the Wesleyan Methodist Church and joined the Church of God and Saints of Christ, a small church based in the United States of America. In November 1912 he began baptising his followers in the Black Kei River near his home in Ntabelanga. He decided to call his followers “Israelites” as he identified with the Hebrews of the Old Testament. Towards the end of 1912 Mgjima predicted that the world would end on Christmas after 30 days of rain. As a result of his predictions his followers stopped working and ploughing their fields. 

Rev Enoch Mgijima

He said he had had a vision in which an angel had been sent to say the following words to him:

“I have sent you to these people because I am worried that although they worship me, they are not honest in their worship of me. I want you to worship me according to your old traditions.”

Needless to say, the end did not come. Over the years Mgijima’s visions became more and more violent. He was asked to renounce his visions by the leaders of the Church as they could not condone the preaching of conflict and war, but Mgijima refused, and was excommunicated. As a result, in 1914 the South African Church of God and Saints of Christ split, with one of the groups following Enoch Mgijima as Israelites.

Mgijima owned a piece of land in Bulhoek and as his following grew, he erected a building to be used for religious ceremonies on one of the pieces of land. The building was rarely used as it could not accommodate the congregation and was soon replaced by a larger, temporary marquee. The space soon became insufficient and Mgijima made alternative plans for his Passover celebrations. He came to an agreement with the local Shiloh Mission Station, which allowed him to host the event on their premises in 1917.

The following year Mgijima was refused the same opportunity because one of his followers had broken one of the mission station’s rules, which decreed that only evangelists could lead church meetings. In an attempt to find another location Mgijima’s lawyer contacted the government’s inspector of African locations at Kamastone, Mr GE Nightingale, for permission to hold Passover on the commonage at the Kamastone sub-section. Permission was granted on the condition that the churchgoers leave immediately after the celebration. In 1919 the same request reached the Superintendent, but due to the objections of other lot owners it was rejected. Mgijima then asked to hold the festival at Ntabelanga, in the Bulhoek sub-section, and was given the go-ahead.

At one of his services early in 1919, Mgijima expressed a prophecy that marked a turning point: he stood in front of his tabernacle and uttered the words “Juda, Efrayime, Josef, nezalwane” (Judah, Ephraim, Joseph and bretheren) which, according to his followers, could be heard by Isrealites all over South Africa. The call led to a pilgrimage, with followers from all over South Africa – about 3 000 people – arriving at Ntabelanga to await the coming of the Lord. The pilgrims proceeded to squat on the property, erecting a tabernacle and some huts – without registering with the authorities or paying tax.

In 1920 Superintendent Nightingale came across the squatters while inspecting the location. He contacted Mgijima, who said that the assembled people had not been able to attend the Passover festivities of the previous year and were there to attend a special service. According to Edgar (2010), the events transpired as follows: Mgijima applied to Nightingale early in 1920 for permission to let his followers attend the Passover festival at Ntabelanga, explaining that many were travelling from afar. Nightingale was reluctant to grant permission as he had heard rumours that some Africans were settling on the land permanently. Mgijima assured the authorities that the people squatting on the land would leave as soon as the Passover was concluded, and the arrangement was accepted.

Mgijima was in a difficult position – he had called all his followers to Bulhoek to await the end of the world, but they were squatting on British land. He had not explained the real reason for the influx of people to Nightingale, and was now in a precarious position – there was the possibility that his credibility would be lost. He could not send his people away, even though he had told the authorities he would. Claiming that there was a lack of firewood and food, he decided to extend the Passover period to the end of May, 1920. When word of this extension reached Nightingale, he paid Mgijima a visit on 8 June 1920, and found many more houses being erected. Again the prophet made excuses for breaking the arrangement. Mgijima explained their presence by saying that many people had fallen ill and some did not have money to travel home. He said Passover would take place on 18 June and the illegal squatters would leave Bulhoek after the event.

In July the headman of Kamastone complained to Nightingale that more Israelites were arriving and more houses were being built. This time Mgijima avoided contact with Nightingale. The Inspector had lost all trust in Mgijima and he began trying other ways of removing the squatters from Ntabelanga.

Conflict

The Israelites were in an awkward position as Mgijima had convinced them to get rid of all their worldly possessions in preparation of his envisioned Armageddon. They became desperate and started to steal livestock from farmers and other residents in the area. At this point the Department of Justice decided that law and order had to be restored at Bulhoek. A register of all the squatters was planned to help remove them from the property. To justify the removal, the state used provisions under the Native Locations Act of 1884 for squatting on Crown land, and other provisions under Government Notice for building on the commonage without permission. On 7 and 8 December 1920 the Senior Magistrate of Queenstown, ECA Welsh, visited Ntabelanga accompanied by 100 police officers under the command of Major Hutchons from Grahamstown. The police force set up their tents 500 metres from the Israelites.

All discussions and negotiations with the Israelites failed and they refused to submit their names for a register or acknowledge the government’s authority. They argued that God was greater than man, and they would listen only to God as they were occupying His land. The Israelites were defiant and aggressive and confronted the group of police officers. They could not be forced to register and the police officers retreated to set up camp for the night. The Magistrate and Major both returned to Queenstown, leaving Captain Whittaker in charge of the police force while they waited for further instructions from Pretoria. As part of the church service 1000 Israelites began marching as the negotiations came to an end. Thinking that the Israelites were preparing an attack, the officers fled to a farm five kilometres away – the Israelites did not seize their supplies and belongings.

When local farmers and other residents heard about the incident they were alarmed. Captain Whitaker sent for reinforcements from Queenstown and a group of volunteers arrived with Major Hutchons. Their strategy called for a defensive position until more men arrived from Pretoria. The situation was extremely tense as the Israelites were gripped by religious fervour and engaged in heated exchanges with government officials. Major Hutchons spoke to farmers, head-men and chiefs in the area, guaranteeing their safety in the hope of preventing them from taking the law into their own hands.

Pretoria refused to send reinforcements and while the volunteers returned to Queenstown, the police stayed to patrol the area. The situation worsened on 14 December 1920 after an incident in which two Israelites were shot by farmer John Mattushek and his servant, a Mr Klopper. The incident took place after Mattushek saw three Israelites searching for cattle-feed in the area. Mattushek became convinced they wanted to kill him. They clashed and Mattushek killed one of the men and wounded another. Farmers in the area feared revenge attacks and moved their families to Queenstown while Mattushek and Klopper were arrested and charged with assault and culpable homicide. When the case came before the court in April 1921 the principal Israelite witness did not appear as the Israelites feared that the government would arrest them if they left Ntabelanga.

Government intervention

Despite the explosive situation, the Native Affairs Department felt that the conflict could be solved in a peaceful manner. A call was made for national government intervention. A group of “moderate” Africans from the Eastern Cape – consisting of JT Jabavu, Meshach Pelem, Patrick Xabanis and Chief Veldtman – were asked by the government to try to persuade the Israelites to leave. When the delegation failed, a group of high-ranking government officials met with Israelite leaders in Queenstown. On 17 December 1920 the group met but nothing was achieved.

Prime Minister Jan Smuts decided to send the newly appointed Native Affairs Commission to Queenstown to negotiate with the Israelites. Enoch Mgijima sent his brother, nephew and another high-ranking church member to negotiate on his behalf. The commission met with the Israelites met on 6 and 8 April 1921, and said it would consider making Ntabelanga an Israelite centre of worship. The Israelites rejected the commission’s porposals and claimed that they “wished to obey the law of the land, but Jehovah was more powerful than the law” and they would not “offend him by disregarding his wishes and obeying the laws of men”.

Another meeting between the Israelites and the commission took place on 11 May 1921, but again nothing was achieved. The Isralites were simply not prepared to leave, and their continuing presence saw support for the commission drop among non-Israelites in the area.

The members of the commission asked the Department of Justice to send a police detachment to remove the illegal squatters. This, they hoped, would be enough to intimidate the Israelites and prevent bloodshed.

Enoch Mgijima being arrested

The Israelites were being condemned for their actions from several quarters. On 17 May 1921 the newspapers Imvo Zabantsundu and The Star, as well as the General Council of the Transkeian Territories, urged the government to enforce the law at Bulhoek. The Council of the Transkeian Territories passed a resolution criticising the Israelites. The South African Native National Congress, later the African National Congress, encouraged the Israelites to return to their homes to avoid bloodshed.

The South African government began preparing to use force. The Department of Justice ordered the South African Police (SAP) and the Union Defense Force (UDF) to gather a large force to take action. A total of 993 policemen and 35 officers from various provinces were mobilised and gathered in Queenstown under the command of Colonel TC Truter from Pretoria, with support from the UDF and the South African Medical Services. The UDF suggested a fly-by with two aircraft as an intimidation tactic. Although bombs would be dropped they would fall wide to prevent injuries. This plan was eventually abandoned as authorities felt it would only strengthen the Israelites’ resolve and would endanger lives.

The Israelites were well aware of the force being assembled against them and prepared themselves for the confrontation. The men marched and trained every afternoon, after which they slaughtered an ox and dipped their assegai tips in its blood. During the night they left their village and took up strategic positions in the surrounding mountains and hills.

By 20 May 1921 the SAP and UDF force was ready and the next day Enoch Mgijima was given an ultimatum. Colonel Truter announced that, as a representative of the government, he was duty-bound to arrest those men who had warrants against them; he had to ensure that all illegal squatters left the area; and he had to destroy all the illegal houses. The next day Mgijima sent Silwana Nkopo and Samuel Matshoba to deliver a letter to Colonel Truter, in which he defended the Israelite position and reiterated his refusal to move.

Tragedy/Massacre

On 23 May 1921 the police mobilised and moved to a farm close to Bulhoek. The force was armed with machine guns, a canon and artillery. Some men remained in Queenstown as there were rumours of a possible Israelite attack on the town. During the night the final preparations were made for the operation and the next morning the government force took up their positions on the hills at Bulhoek.

The Israelites were also readying themselves, and about 500 men wre armed with clubs, assegais and swords. Colonel Truter made a final attempt to prevent violence by sending two Xhosa-speaking officers to negotiate. However, they were told: “From Jehovah, we will not allow you to scatter our people from Ntabelanga. We will not allow you to burn our huts, and we will not allow you to arrest the two men you wish to.”

It is not clear how the battle started but some reports say it may have begun after a shot was fire by accident. Soon afterwards the Israelites launched an attack and Colonel Truter ordered his force to advance. Warning shots were fired over the heads of the approaching Israelites but they were not deterred. The troops were ordered to shoot and a large number of Israelites were wounded. Some of the injured got up and continued to charge. One of the commanding officers, Colonel Woon, said the Israelites were “the most determined and fanatical I had ever experienced, and it was only by shooting them down that the attack could have stopped”. About 200 people were killed, more than 100 were wounded and 141 were arrested, including Enoch Mgijima and his sons.

In November 1921 the trial of the 141 Israelites arrested began in Queenstown. They were charged with “violent and forcible conduct against the authority of the state” (Edgar, 2010: 37). The trial lasted two weeks, at the end of which all 141 were found guilty. The judge, Thomas Graham, sentenced Mgijima, his elder brother Charles, and Gilbert Matshoba to six years’ hard labour at DeBeer’s Convict Station in Kimberley. A few were given suspended sentences, but the remaining 129 Israelites were sentenced to between 12 and 18 months of hard labour. Mgijima was released from prison in 1924 and died some years later, on 5 March 1929.

Some historians believe that the Israelites were the victims of the segregationist government, as their struggle was a fight for land and exemption from taxes, as well as self-rule to end White oppression. Others argue that they were endangering the people around them as well as taking possession of land they did not own. It is difficult to say what whether the SAP could have acted differently. The government faced ongoing criticism for years after the incident.

*(This article is taken wholly from South African History Online website)

Pudemo will NOT contest Swaziland's 2018 tinkhundla elections! - Statement

20 February 2017

The Peoples United Democratic Movement (PUDEMO) has noted and rejects, with the contempt they deserve, reports on the media, specifically the Times of Swaziland, dated 20 February 2017, that the movement intends to participate in planned Tinkhundla 2018 National “Elections”. Toward this end PUDEMO would like to retaliate the following:

PUDEMO WILL NOT BE PARTICIPATING IN TINKHUNDLA 2018 “ELECTIONS”

PUDEMO has no funders, and the accompanying insinuations that it is these imaginary donors that are either forcing PUDEMO to participate is both unfounded and baseless. We again place it on record that the movement has no donors and has never had one. Instead, the movement has allied organizations some of which have ongoing joint partnership programs with the movement. The relationship with these progressive organizations is that of equal partners, not a donor – recipient nature.

PUDEMO is not afraid of elections, and remains committed to taking part in Swaziland National Elections, that will be conducted under conditions that guarantee a democratic, free, fair, meaningful and transparent process, not the current royal sham. The current Tinkhundla elections has no effect in the political life of the country, as power remains concentrated in royal hands, and all meaningful decisions are made through royal command. PUDEMO has no intention, now or in the future to associate its glorious name and record of struggle with such a royal grand scam to defraud our people of their right to democratically and freely elect a government of their own. We remain unshaken in the belief that working together with our people victory is certain.

PUDEMO is alive that as 2018 approaches, the locally and internationally discredited Tinkhundla regime will try all sorts of desperate attempts to bring the good name of PUDEMO to its royal circus, in an attempt to lend credence to this meaningless sham already battling legitimacy even from institutions and organizations that hereinto supported this royal regime like the Commonwealth and recently SADC election observer mission.

PUDEMO is a democratic movement and therefore all major policy shifts have to be endorsed by the highest structures of the organization and in this case a National Congress. If PUDEMO changes its position with regards to the Tinkhundla elections, this will be formally debated which would include stocktaking of the successes of the non-participation strategy and failures thereof.

PUDEMO is not a rigid movement that is stuck on dogmatic tactics of the past especially as they relate to issues of tactics not principles. For that reason PUDEMO constantly opens up forums to assess balance of forces both internally and externally, and to weigh the objective and subjective factors that influence our revolution. This is so that PUDEMO can take the appropriate political positions informed by rigorous and scientific analysis of contemporary Swaziland and momentum of struggle at each epoch. This has always been the fundamental principle that informs PUDEMO’s unwavering position on the Tinkhundla elections, it will not be changing soon.

Our people need to be constantly reminded that even if PUDEMO were to pass a resounding resolution to participate in the Tinkhundla elections, it is legally impossible to do so as a political party, owing to the plethora of laws that militate against group representation in Tinkhundla parliament. Tied to this is the fact that even by some stroke of miracle and luck all 55 directly elected members of parliament were to be PUDEMO members, the current Constitutional configuration gives disproportionate powers to the King and many other unaccountable and shady royal structures that it would ultimately be an exercise in futility thinking we can change the system from within.

PUDEMO is a voluntary organization and people join it based on the understanding that they agree with our objectives, mission, and goals. If, however, people find these goals repugnant with their personal ambitions they are free to surrender their membership, and do as they personally please. Otherwise, all PUDEMO members remain free to influence the organization through the constitutional structures of the movement and win the majority view. In the event they don’t, they are obliged to respect the majority position and abide by it.

We further reject any attempt that elevates Cde Maxwell Dlamini to a policy spokesperson of PUDEMO, or a representative of any PUDEMO’s official position. Cde Maxwell is a leader in SWAYOCO, and doesn’t speak on behalf of PUDEMO. We advise the media to contact appropriate PUDEMO officials for any official view of the movement.

Statement issued by the office of the Secretary General

Mlungisi Makhanya

Fb: PUDEMO

Twitter: @pudemo

Mobile: +26876357528

Email: mcmakhanya24@gmail.com

Male gender activists are gays, softies, players? Right?

We already know the trauma that female gender activists have to go through on a daily basis, right? The humiliating things every single day and the frequent demeaning words levelled against them by their opponents are amazing! These remarks are always used with the intention of discouraging them from continuing with the struggle for gender equality.

Some of the remarks include: feminists; lesbians; anti-Christs; men-haters; sluts; abortionists; baby-killers; westernised women; divorcees or future divorcees, etc. It does not matter whether these opponents believe in the words they hit the women with. All they care about is to say something humiliating against them so that they lose steam and no longer partake in gender struggles. Bear in mind that some of these words may not inherently be demeaning (eg feminist). All that matters to the anti-equality proponents is that the words are said with a clear intention to insult that particular woman at that particular point.

But how about males who advocate for gender equality? What are the demeaning things that are levelled against them? My personal experience has led me to list a few of those insults. If you are a man who constantly and consistently advocates for gender equality, these are the negative responses you will receive from people out there:

1.    “He is saying all these things simply to impress some woman (or women generally). The things he is saying are the kind of things that a player will say just so as to impress women and then be allowed in.”

2.    If you defeat the above statement, well, obviously, “Do you not see that he is gay?”

3.    If you are able, believe me after a very long time, to defeat the above claim, you will receive a fresh claim. For the unmarried man they will say, “His wife will mistreat him and he will sheepishly obey,” and for the married man they will say, “He wears the skirts in the family.” In SiSwati, “Lona utawube advonswa ngumfati ngesilevu masekashadile,” for the unmarried man, or, “Phela lona nguye umfati kulelikhaya,” for the married one. It will get worse if they find you washing dishes or cooking at home. That would be a “clear sign” that they are “correct.”

4.    If you are successful in defeating the above claim, the opponents will hit with another one. “He is just not a real man! He is a softie!” Yep! That is what you will get.

5.    If you defeat the above claim, then, “He is male feminist, obviously misplaced because men can never be feminists.”

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 8^th edition, a feminist is “a person who supports the belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men.” There are, of course, other definitions of the word “feminist” from different schools of thought.

6.    If you are able to defeat the above, they will start all over again recycling the other claims, one after the other. What you have to know is that no matter what you do or say they will always have some negative things to say in order to get you to stop this “nonsense.”

Ask any man out there who has ever dared to speak even one word in favour of gender equality, and they will tell you that they have had the above things said to, or against, them. Note that none of these opponents will ever refer to the men (and the women) as gender activists or activists for gender equality. No. The intention is always to find some words which society regards as demeaning and use them against the activists. 

Swaziland: Mswati’s public school catechism policy should be challenged – says Swaziland Solidarity Network

SSN- STATEMENT: 27 January, 2017

The Swaziland Solidarity Network [SSN] strongly condemns King Mswati’s decision to limit the scope of the country’s curriculum. The country’s Prime Minister, Mr Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini told the nation that his king’s government had unilaterally taken the decision to limit the country’s Religious Studies curriculum to teach only about Christianity.

Expanding on this new policy, the Prime Minister said that while other religions could be taught at a later stage of the country’s education system, in the early grades Swazi learners are henceforth going to only learn about Christianity.

It is quite clear therefore that the ruling regime aims to condition young learners towards the Christian religion and be ignorant, and thus prejudiced, towards other religions. This is in violation of the country’s own constitutions which allows all religious communities to instruct learners about their own religions and allows them to teach about others.

The SSN further urges all Swazi parents and the Swaziland National Association of Teachers to legally and otherwise challenge the state’s attempt to turn the country’s public schools into Catechism classes.

Issued by the Swaziland Solidarity Network [SSN]

Contact:

Lucky Lukhele- Spokesperson

+2781 458 5658