The following statement has been released by Rhodes University's Prof Lynette Steenveld, Prof Robert Van Niekerk, Prof Larry Strelitz after a public viewing and discussion of the work of American documentary filmmaker, Estela Bravo, elicited much heated debate.
The following statement has been released by Rhodes University's Prof Lynette Steenveld, Prof Robert Van Niekerk, Prof Larry Strelitz after a public viewing and discussion of the work of American documentary filmmaker, Estela Bravo, elicited much heated debate.
The statement follows the publication of two opinion pieces in Grocott's Mail: one piece by Mark Woodland, a student who criticized Bravo during the discussion following a piece she did about Cuba, and a response by Esther Ramani defending Woodland's right to speak.
You can read the opinion pieces at the following links:
Opinion: Speaking out about Cuba
Bravo dissent misses the point: a response
Prof Lynette Steenveld, Prof Robert Van Niekerk, Prof Larry Strelitz
The 7 March edition of Grocott’s Mail contained two opinion pieces on the public viewing and discussion of two films by American documentary filmmaker, Estela Bravo held in the Barrett Lecture theatre. As organisers of the event, we wish to point out a couple of inaccuracies in the information conveyed about the event.
First, the event on the 26th February was not organised by the Politics Department, but was co-hosted by the School of Journalism & Media Studies, the International Office of Rhodes University, and the Institute of Social and Economic Research. It was chaired by Prof Lynette Steenveld, and the guest speaker was introduced by her. Ms Estela Bravo had no role in the introductions as erroneously stated in one of the opinion pieces .
Secondly, both opinion pieces claim that a student was “silenced” because he challenged Ms Bravo’s films as being excellent pieces of “propaganda” which did not portray “the truth” about Cuba (and also North Korea—it wasn’t clear how these links were made).
In our view, having been given the opportunity to make this point, which was an aggressive delivery of what appeared to be a prepared speech, Professor Steenveld held up her hand to stop his further haranguing in order to give other people the same opportunity as he had, to speak.
The microphone was then taken around the room, and Dr Ramani was allowed to make her ‘defence’ of the student’s right to free speech, and she commended his ‘bravery’ in speaking up in a context in which he appeared to hold a minority view.
And perhaps this is the point: he did appear to hold a minority view amongst those present. It is therefore surprising that the coverage of the occasion focused on this one contribution, rather than on the many others which occupied the rest of the evening.
For those who were not there, it might be noted that one young man from Pedi stood up and movingly described his stay in Cuba as a medical student; another recalled that his family came from a village near Cuite Cuenevale in Angola (where the Cubans scored a decisive victory against the Apartheid SADF) and what an impact that had made on his life.
Many students came up to Estela Bravo at the end of the film screening and asked to have their photographs taken with her.
These occurences, as well as the student responses to the films as they were being screened suggest that those present had been engaged in different ways.
In a University, this is the hoped for response: to make students think, and feel, and perhaps act differently as a result of their intellectual engagement. The ‘dissenting student’, Mark Woodland, was also offered this opportunity.
We also think that Estela Bravo’s documentaries were cast in a particular light in the two opinion pieces. Two documentaries were screened. Mandela and Fidel focused on what underpinned the friendship between the two political ‘giants’ in the context of Cuban support for the struggle against apartheid. The footage focused on both the personal and political aspects of their relationship—and offered touching moments of intimacy between the two leaders.
The second documentary, After the Battle, focused principally on the human effects of the Angolan battle of Cuite Cuenevale on the families of South African and Cuban soldiers who fought in the historic battle.
The documentary gave voice to the South African family view, as it did to the Cuban family view, while unambiguously taking the position that the SADF incursion into Angola was illegitimate and that the struggle against apartheid was a legitimate struggle.
Bravo portrayed the families of apartheid era SADF soldiers who died in the conflict very sensitively and demonstrated the tragic irony that despite many of the white conscripted soldiers being personally opposed to apartheid, they ended up dying as conscripts in Angola for a cause they did not believe in.
Although Bravo showed the overwhelmingly positive reception the Cuban soldiers received on returning to Havana from Angola, welcomed home as liberation fighters, she also gave space to a man who had not fought there, and did not believe that Cubans should have gone to fight in Angola. She allowed the soldiers and their families to give their views on why they were inspired to volunteer to fight with the Cuban forces in Angola.
Some made observations about their Cuban family histories being traceable to Angola through slavery, giving them an affinity with Angola and its people.
This documentary, first screened by the BBC in 1991, provoked animated discussion and questions to Estela Bravo by students after the screening.
That Mr Woodland considered the documentaries Cuban propaganda is but one view to which he is fully entitled; many thought and felt differently. Unfortunately the Grocott's Mail coverage failed to reflect this diversity of views.
