South African Coat of Arms

A character in Merlin, with a tattoo on his left arm.

I was watching the final few episodes of season 4 of the BBC series Merlin and a tattoo on the arm of one of the characters caught my eye.

A digitally enhanced
close-up of the tattoo.

Yes, it as none other than the South African Coat of Arms! Such anachronisms--one of the hall marks of Postmodernism--get's me all giddy. The average Joe watching the series would not recognize the tattoo for what it is. Who would have thought that the Coat of Arms could make for such a cool looking tattoo?

I've personally always liked the new Coat of Arms. From a purely graphic design point of view, it is a well thought through design. (I originally studied graphic design, and although I don't work in that field full time any more, I still have an appreciation for good design.)

The dawning sun, a symbol for both Africa and for a new beginning, crowns the Secretary Bird. The bird spreads its wings open in triumph and hope. The Secretary Bird is a bird of prey indigenous to Sub-Sahara Africa, known for it's unique way of killing its prey by kicking it to death. In the emblem the spear and knopkierie, two traditional weapons that also symbolize authority, act as the Secretary Bird's legs. The weapons are reclined into a guarded cross, indicating that they are used for defence, rather than offence.

The body of the Secretary Bird is both a diamond and a protea. The former representing South Africa's mineral wealth, and the latter referring to South Africa's flora. The protea is South Africa's national flower. Over 90% of all protea are found only in South Africa, in the Cape Floristic Region.

In the centre of the emblem, together with the spear and knopkierie is the traditional shield, a symbol of protection. Displayed on the shield are two human figures holding hands, symbolizing friendship, reconciliation, and unity and community. The figures are of Khoi-San (Bushmen) people, the first inhabitants of Southern Africa. I find this particularly touching that these truly indigenous South African people should be honoured in this way. The motto at the bottom of the shield is written in the Khoi language, "!ke e: /xarra //ke". It means "unity in diversity", referring to South Africa's multicultural community.

The ears of wheat symbolizes South Africa's agriculture--the bedrock of the country's health. They also signifies sustainable growth.

Finally the elephant tusks refers to the country's wildlife. Elephants are also symbols of strength and wisdom, while ivory represents longevity.

Sadly, this rich Coat of Arms also contains many ironies. The idea of a better life for all, a new beginning after the oppression of the previous regime, is quickly fading as the new regime, the current governing party, is becoming increasingly more corrupt. The reclined weapons that should indicate peace now seem to indicate the governments impotence to defend against the terrible violent crimes that plague the land. Especially suffering under these violent crimes are the agricultural industry. The systematic killing of farmers are also destroying the country's self-sufficiency. Instead of symbolising agricultural health, the ears of wheat are transformed into wreaths for graves. The illegal trade in ivory causes the butchery of elephants for their tusks and rhinos for their horns by poachers. The tusks that should symbolize longevity, now becomes reason for their premature death. The shield and the figures holding hands regularly seem to be and ideal only and the Khoi-San people are still some of the most marginalized, underprivileged people in South Africa.

Then, of course, there are the conspiracy theorists that believe that the Coat of Arms is a design chosen by the New World Order, seeped with occult symbolism.

Image Source

I'm not sure that I am truly convinced about this; however, there is that Eye-of-Providence on the pyramid. The fact that it is so conspicuously red, clearly indicates something sinister, doesn't it?

The Eye-of-Providence, also known as the All-Seeing-Eye, is also found on the American Dollar Bill.

Jacopo Pontormo's "Supper at Emmaus"
Circa 1525

In Byzantine and traditional Christian art, the Eye-of-Providence functions as a symbol for the omniscience of God, and the triangle is an icon used for the Trinity.

However, the symbol was not an authentic Christian icon. The Roman Church took it (and many other symbols) from paganism. The earliest version of the "eye" is probably the Eye of Horos, which symbolizes the Egyptian Sun-God, Ra.

That the Freemasons and other secret fraternity's often make use of the Eye-of-Providence as one of their icons is well established. If the little red triangle on top of the pyramid in the South African Coat of Arms is indeed a reference to the Eye-of-Providence as is also found in the American One Dollar Bill, then there may be room for suspicion that the powers-that-be in South Africa are not necessarily the ones doing the posturing in the media. As with most governments that are infiltrated by the New World Order, for example the United States of America, the politicians are merely puppets that dance to the strings of other, higher powers.

But, back to the South African Coat of Arms, it is fun to see that it makes for an interesting tattoo! And I enjoyed seeing it in the magical world of the Merlin-series.

Anti-Modernist

I’ve always been negative towards Modernism. And while I do not embrace the postmodern sentiment in its entirety, I do resonate with it at many levels. So yes, one would not be off the mark to label me a postmodernist.

Today I stumbled onto this quote regarding Modernism by sci-fi horror author H. P. Lovecraft on one of the blogs I follow.

It is not a true civilization, and has nothing in it to satisfy a mature and fully developed human mind. It is attuned to the mentality of the galley-slave and the moron, and crushes relentlessly with disapproval, ridicule, and economic annihilation any sign of actually independent thought and civilised feeling which chances to rise above its sodden level. It is a treadmill, squirrel-trap culture – drugged and frenzied with the hashish of industrial servitude and material luxury. It is wholly a material body-culture, and its symbol is the tiled bathroom and steam radiator rather than the Doric portico and the temple of philosophy. Its denizens do not live or know how to live.

Lovecraft’s observation of Modernism is spot-on and much of it is still in effect today. After all, Postmodernism is not “post-“ Modernism, but “para-“ Modernism, as (I think) Brian McHale explains the current zeitgeist.

Curiosity Kills the 80's

I’ve been dreading the trend signs that have been suggesting a return to 80’s fashion. I prayed that it would not occur, but secretly knew that it was bound to flare up somewhere. I just didn’t expect it to be in Korea. Below is the new music video by EE for their latest single “Curiosity Kills,” which literally screams: "Back to the 80's!" However, there is also something early 90's about it, don't you think? And also a little bit of the late 50's and early 60's. I guess that is postmodernism for you. Still, it's those 80's fashions I'm most afraid of.

Boekresensie (Deel 1): Die Nihilisme

Danie Goosen se filosofiese rede in Die Nihilisme: Notas oor ons tyd (2007) is nie ’n maklike lees nie. Ek is sowat ’n derde deur die boek en daar is soveel dinge waarop ek wil reaggeer dat ek besluit het om maar solank my resensie oor die boek te begin. Ek het besluit om my resensie oor Die Nihilisme in dele te doen; hierdie is Deel 1.

Soos feitlik almal bewus is, lewe ons in die sogenaamde Postmodernisme. Ek beskou myself goed vertroud met die Postmodernisme. Die titel vir my meestersgraadverhandeling is: “Die skep en voorstelling van ’n postmoderne karakteridententeit in prosa”. Vir my studie het ek baie boeke omtrent die postmodernisme gelees. Byna al die boeke wat op daardie stadium in die universiteitsbiblioteek was, wat enigsins met postmodernisme te make het, het ek onder oë gehad. Baie daarvan het ek deurgelees. Let wel, deurgelees; nie bloot gespoedlees (“scan”) nie.

Ek het groot ’n belangstelling in hierdie onderwerp en dis om hierdie rede dat die onderopskrif van Goosen se boek, “notas oor ons tyd”, my aandag getrek het. En inderdaad, Goosen maak dit vanaf die openingsmomente duidelik dat sy narratief gaan handel oor die Modernisme en Postmodernisme en hoedat hierdie tydsgeeste Nihilisme tot gevolg het.

Dit is allermins hoekom ek die boek gekoop het, en nou begin lees het.

Wel, ek het nou al oor die honderd en dertig bladsye gelees en moet getuig dat Goosen nog bitter min te sê gehad het oor ieder die Modernisme, nóg die Postmodernisme. Sover het Goosen feitlik die heeltyd gefokus op die dramaturgie as metafoor vir die wêreld. Bladsy na bladsy swoeg ek deur die ontwikkeling van die dramaturgie, die dramaturgie as filosofiese motief, die dramaturgie as geskikte metafoor vir die wêreld, en so meer.

Ek kan dit vir Goosen in drie reëls met behulp van Shakespeare opsom (uit Jacques se monoloog in die verhoogstuk, As You Like It [2/7]):

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;

Ta-daa!

Kan ons nou tot die punt kom asseblief?

Nee ons kan nie. Ek begin nou eers, op bladsy 137, met hoofstuk drie: Die dramaturgiese gemeenskap.

So wanneer ons uiteindelik by die “notas oor ons tyd”, maw die Postmodernisme, gaan uitkom weet nugter alleen. Ek kan nie eers in die inhoudsopgawe soek vir die relevante hoofstukke, as doelwitte om na uit te sien nie, want daar is nie ’n inhoudsopgawe nie!

Maar kom ons kom terug na wat Goosen wel sover oor die Modernisme en die Postmodernisme te sê gehad het. Hy begin in die eerste paragraaf van die hoofstuk een met die volgende stelling:

“So het die modernisme vanaf die 1960’s en 70’s nie net die epog van die postmodernisme geword nie, maar ook die epog van die post-religieuse, die post-metafisiese, die post-historiese, die post-politieke, die post-humane, die post-etiese en die post-estetiese” (Goosen, 2007:22).

Hierdie enkele sin sê vir my dat Goosen dalk teoreties die Postmodernisme vir homself gekonkretiseer het, maar dat hy heeltemal uitvoeling is met die postmoderne mens. Al daardie “post”-samevoegings van Goosen is dalk waar vir die Modernisme, maar ek dink glad nie so geldig vir die Postmodernisme nie. Die Modernisme was inderdaad die epog waarin religie ontmag is, die wetenskap die metafiese ontsê het, en die estetiese geëindig het in witverf op ’n wit doek, of ’n leë musiekblad; in lyn met Goosen se gevolgtrekking – nihilisme.

Dit is moontlik dat ek Goosen verkeerd lees, maar my verstaan van die Postmodernisme is geensins dat dit nihilisties is, soos wat Goosen “post-” beskryf nie. Terwyl die Modernisme religie ontklaar gemaak het, het religie in die Postmodernisme, mynsinsiens, weer herleef. Nie noodwendig in die vorige ortodokse strukture (maw die kerk) nie, maar as iets meer organies en natuurlik. Die meeste hedendaagse mense is nie Modernisties Ateïsties nie. Vir die meeste mense bestaan daar ’n metafisiese. Die verskil is bloot ’n verskuiwing vanaf aanmatige gestruktureerdheid, tot ’n meer natuurlike, of intuïtiewe “geestelikheid”. Vra die standaard Generarsie X’er of sy godsdienstig is, en jy sal hoor dat sy sê, nee nie godsdienstig nie (ek gaan nie kerk toe nie), maar spiritueel (“not religious, but spiritual”).

Ek het nog baie te sê oor daardie een sin van Goosen, maar laat ek aan beweeg.

Iets waarmee ek saam stem is Goosen se idee dat die postmoderne mens ’n tuisteloosheid ervaar – ’n tipe wêreldverlies. Maar dan gaan hy verder deur te beweer dat die Postmodernisme sonder gemeenskap is. Hiermee stem ek nie saam nie. Daar is beslis gemeenskappe (veeltallige gemeenskappe!) in die Postmodernisme, meerso as tydens die Modernisme. Die groot verskil is dat die Modernisme se gemeenskappe was/is geforseer (óf gereduseer) tot gedwonge sisteme. Daarinteen vorm die hedendaagse (postmoderne) mens spontane gemeenskap gebasseer op gedeelde belange en belangstellings. Die postmoderne mense is deel van verskeie subkulture. Neem myself as voorbeeld: Ek het ’n historiese kulturele gemeenskap, maar ek is ook deel van verskeie ander subkulture; belangstellingsubkulture, onder meer ’n Taekwon-Do en krygskuns subkultuur, ’n parkour-subkultuur; verskillende Internetgebasseerde gemeenskappe (byvoorbeeld die blogosfeer); ek is selfs in gemeenskap met mense via die Internet wat ek nog nooit fisies ontmoet het nie. Die Postmodernisme is geensins ontneem van gemeenskappe nie – inteendeel. Die verskil is bloot dat dié gemeenskappe nie meer lyk soos vroeër nie. Die tradisionele familiekring is van minder belang as die vriende kring. Nasionalisme maak plek vir globale interaksie met mense wat ’n gedeelde deler het. En so aan.

Wat sy verdere ontleding van die Postmodernisme betref, fokus Goosen onder andere op die linguistiese aard van die Postmodernisme, en haal Gadamer aan wat sê: “...this world is verbal in nature...” (Ibid, 72.) Baie postkritiese denkers is dit eens dat die Postmodernisme om taal spil, maar ek wonder of dit ’n genoegsaam omvattende onderskraging van die Postmodernisme is.

Eerder as taalmatig, is die Postmodernisme nie dalk visueel nie? Het die woord nie dalk plek gemaak vir die beeld nie? (Ek wens iemand wat iets te sê het oor die Postmodernisme wil bietjie iets nuuts sê.)

Verdere kritiek op Die Nihilisme, is nie Goosen se rasionaal nie, maar eerder die retoriese uiteensetting en toeganklikheid van die teks. Alhoewel Goosen uit sy pad gaan om dinge soos die dramaturgie te bespreek, los hy sekere van die ander hoofbegrippe in die teks, soos “syn”, grootliks ongedefiniëer. Wanneer daar wel definisies aangebied word, raak dit so abstrak dat dit van wynige waarde is. Neem byvoorbeeld hierdie definisie van die Modernisme: “...die modernisme [kan] beskryf word as dié kulturele geheel van dinge ingevolge waarvan daar nie net ’n abrupte breuk tussen transendensie en immanensie, eenheid en verskil in die werklikheid ingevoer word nie, maar ingevolge waarvan daar tegelyk ook ’n onvermoë bestaan om genoemde breuk tot ’n gedifferensieerde eenheid op te voer” (Ibid., 134, 135). Verbeel jou om daardie definisie vir die Modernisme in ’n woordeboek te lees! Mynsinsiens is so ’n definisie selfs vir ’n filosofiese woordeboek ongeskik.

Tensy jy ’n matige kennis van die filosofie het, twyfel ek of die gewone leser enige maklike invalshoek tot die boek kan hê. Goosen bied eenvoudig nie aan die leser ’n geleidelike oploop tot die teks nie.

Daar is meer te sê, maar ek gaan my vereers met die voorafgaande berus.