|
The devil's in the details
18/06/2008 08:31 - (SA)
Chris Roper
I had to laugh when I read the headline Hansie deserves closure on our very own News24. It's one of those statements that, if you read it more than once, becomes meaningless.
Why does a dead man need closure? Surely he's pretty much untouchable by this time? And why does he deserve closure?
What the writer of the column actually means, is that people who still think Hansie is a hero need closure, and by closure he means that the rest of the world should stop talking about Hansie so that his devotees don't have uncomfortable truths stuck in front of their faces, and can get on with worshipping Good Hansie rather than having to deal with Bad Hansie.
The author of the column didn't write the headline. (That talent is given to very few people - I, for example, can't think of titles for my own columns.) In fact, he puts his case far more convincingly, when he writes "This matter needs public closure out of respect for Hansie's memory and his family".
I can buy the latter part of that argument - it can't be nice having your loved one dissected by people who have no idea what the real person was like, and whose only aim is to score some points with their respective TV/website/magazine/newspaper audience. Out of respect for the family, one should tread carefully, and in an ideal world they should never be bothered by media coverage.
Of course, the cynics among you will argue that, if the family is making a film about Hansie, then they're playing in the same space as the media, which changes things somewhat.
But the first part of the argument - that the "matter", as it's euphemistically described, needs public closure out of respect for Hansie's memory - that I can't agree with.
Clear heads
Firstly, the thrust of anti-Hansie polemicists, like the ones attacked in the column in question (and they include the BBC for making the programme The Captain and the Bookmaker, Tim Noakes, Telford Vice and Richard Calland) is clearly that Hansie doesn't deserve respect. So to assert that they should stop showing a lack of respect, out of respect, is entirely illogical.
Secondly, saying that we should stop analysing Hansie Cronje's criminal actions is about as nonsensical as saying "Elvis impersonators should stop wiggling their hips, out of respect for Elvis' memory". Or, even worse, "the matter of the Arms Deal needs public closure, out of respect for Jacob Zuma and his family".
If the point of having heroes like good Hansie is so that we can learn from his example, surely the point of having villains like bad Hansie is also so that we can learn from his example? Because, after all, both are undeniably the same Hansie. And in fact, if you're a fan of Shakespeare, or the Bible, or the Harry Potter movies, you'll probably agree with me that all the best heroes are the complicated ones.
It's like being a fan of the cool Elvis from the 60s, but getting upset when people talk about the drug-raddled Elvis from the 70s (or "The Fat Bastard Years", as my friend Stuart refers to them). Both Elvises are important to fans of music, and you can approve of the early Elvis at the same time as thinking the stuff he made in the 70s is rubbish.
Now I'm not suggesting that Elvis and Hansie should be treated the same way, as their stories are very different. The one was a King who died on his throne, the other was dethroned by the King Commission. But for students of popular culture and the phenomenon of the celebrity icon, there are undeniable similarities.
Scapegoat
Both have fanatical followers who believe that they are guardians of the true flame, and that only they have the right to talk about, and judge, Elvis or Hansie. And both have become much more than the people they were - they're now part of the language of culture, and as such belong to everyone.
One of the readers commented on the "Hansie deserves closure" column, and wrote this: "DW says: I read the Hansie Cronje story and I think he got a raw deal. He was wrong and was rightfully punished but he was definitely used as a scapegoat to try to teach everyone else a lesson, a lesson clearly not yet learnt as there is still match fixing in various sports."
It's an intelligent comment, although the conclusion is flawed. Hansie is being used as an example, rather than a scapegoat ("scapegoat" implies that nobody else is being accused of the same thing). The biblical meaning of scapegoat, interestingly (courtesy of dictionary.com and Leviticus 16:8,10,26.), is "a goat let loose in the wilderness on Yom Kippur after the high priest symbolically laid the sins of the people on its head."
In the biblical sense (and cultural sense, which some will tell you is the same thing), we need to keep the story of Hansie Cronje alive, to serve as an object lesson for others, in the same way that Hansie the consummate sportsman served as an example for young cricketers, before he blew it.
It's not personal - it's what it means to be a hero. It's what it means to be a villain. It's what it means to be part of a cultural consciousness. But yes, sometimes it's just plain mean.
Chris Roper will field comments on his blog at www.chrisroper.co.za
Send your comments to Chris.
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
|
