Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
25 May 2020 | Story Dr Nitha Ramnath. | Photo Anja Aucamp
Dr Nitha Ramnath.

While Africa can boast many achievements today, it also faces a myriad of challenges.  With its diverse political and socio-economic landscapes, blend of cultures and traditions, no two countries in the continent are the same. While important advancements have been achieved in many areas, societies are still plagued by discrimination, racism, and inequalities. The multifaceted and complex challenges facing Africa can only be tackled effectively through inclusion. 
The African proverb ‘Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu’ can be translated to mean that to be human is to recognise the humanity of others. The notion of Ubuntu is developed from this proverb when discussing problematic situations and appealing to individuals to be humane and to ensure that human dignity is always at the core of people’s’ actions, thoughts, and deeds when interacting with others. Having Ubuntu is showing care and concern for others, lending a helping hand, and displaying an understanding of the dignity with which human beings ought to be treated – because they are human. Ubuntu is the hallmark of inclusivity, an example of tolerance and solidarity in ordinary life. It denotes brotherhood, neighbourliness, benevolence, human dignity, equal treatment and respect, solidarity, human rights, and tolerance towards outsiders. 

In April 1998, Thabo Mbeki addressed the United Nations University, where he called on Africans to appreciate their importance and equip themselves for development shaped for equal economic activity and good living. With a superior insight into the importance of brotherhood and neighbourliness, premised on African renaissance, Thabo Mbeki warned Africans against intolerance towards outsiders. He said the following:

“I owe my being to the Khoi and the San whose desolate souls haunt the great expanses of the beautiful Cape. I am formed of the migrants who left Europe to find a new home on our native land. Whatever their actions, they remain, still, part of me. In my veins course the blood of the Malay slaves who came from the East. I am the grandchild of the warrior men and women that Hintsa and Sekhukhune led, the patriots that Cetshwayo and Mphephu took to battle, the soldiers Moshoeshoe and Ngunyane taught never to dishonour the cause of freedom. I am the grandchild who sees in the mind’s eye and suffers the suffering of a simple peasant folk…”

“I come of those who were transported from India and China. Being part of all these people, and in the knowledge that none dare contest that assertion, I shall claim that I am an African!” 

However, these wise words and the concept of Ubuntu of Africans, stands in stark contrast to the bout of xenophobic attacks, and the pandemonium of violence recently seen in South Africa.

Despite the many challenges that the South African state is grappling with, it is a known fact that the country continues to offer much-needed economic attraction for most Africans from poor nations. South Africa’s sophisticated economy is an attractive pull force for many Africans, and regardless of the European concerns about Mediterranean migrants from Africa, most of the migration occurs within the African continent itself. 

As such, South Africa has seen a surge in violence in recent years, where African nationals – mainly economic migrants – were exclusively targeted, resulting in the deaths of 12 people in 2019. Mainly from Somalia, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, thousands of these African foreign nationals found themselves displaced and their shops looted and vandalised. The assumption that people have come to ‘take the jobs’ of South Africans has subjected individuals to xenophobic attacks. 

The violent attacks were soon followed by African refugees and asylum seekers protesting xenophobia and staging months of sit-ins on the streets of Cape Town from September 2019. A makeshift camp quickly grew on the pavements of the city’s main tourist attractions, the Greenmarket Square. Another camp sprung up outside the District Six Museum – with protesters inside the Central Methodist Church on Greenmarket Square and outside the District Six Museum. These protestors were demanding relocation to any other country.

The language of fear and intimidation has become embedded in our national dialogue and has often dominated news headlines locally and globally. President Cyril Ramaphosa emphasised that turning on foreign nationals can never be justified. He said: “We want foreign nationals here to obey the laws of South Africa. They must obey the laws. They must live in accordance with our protocols, laws, and regulations. If they are committing crime, they are criminals like any South African would be a criminal for doing the same thing.”

In response to the violent attacks on foreign nationals, the African Union and African countries have criticised South Africa, threatening economic sanctions. South African embassies were attacked and the South African ambassador to Nigeria was summoned. The attacks saw the withdrawal of the Zambian soccer team from a match and the cancellation of a concert by a Nigerian Afrobeat star – all in protest against the attacks. South African businesses were also under threat. 

In response to the attacks, the government launched a National Action Plan to combat xenophobia, racism, and discrimination, in order to address the widespread human rights abuses arising from xenophobic and gender-based violence and discrimination.

However, the Action Plan has glaring gaps and fails to address the problem of lack of accountability for xenophobic crimes. No convictions have been reported and perpetrators of such violence got away, setting the stage for similar attacks in the future. 

Xenophobia found itself a threat to the idea of the African Renaissance – the ideals of harmony and diversity were suddenly threatened. It seems that South Africans soon forgot about the good old African Ubuntu and its own struggles and attempts to overcome the injustices of the past and its many projects of social cohesion and inclusive nation-building, all premised on the idea of Ubuntu?

We are therefore faced with uncomfortable questions as South Africans – why are we treating people so inhumanely? How is it that 25 years after the first free and fair elections, coupled with our own struggle for human rights and the need to end discrimination, we support the displacement of communities and watch the destruction of the lives of many?  
South Africa has taught the world many lessons about forgiveness and reconciliation. As violent anti-immigrant rhetoric sweeps through Europe and the United States and many other parts of the world, perhaps this is another opportunity for us to teach the world about how hatred emerges and how it can be stopped.

SA stands to gain tremendously from the diverse nature of society, and we need to remind ourselves again of the principle of Ubuntu – our attitude of benevolence and tolerance towards foreigners or strangers before xenophobia.
We need to ask ourselves – how did we fare during the recent xenophobic attacks, and have we done enough to put an end to these atrocities that stand to threaten the very fabric of Ubuntu in the future. Have we allowed xenophobia to dilute Ubuntu?

This article was written by Dr Nitha Ramnath, Deputy Director: Communication and Marketing at the University of the Free State.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept