Welcome! I am Mark Anderson, a self-published writer and independent researcher. This blog is an intellectual crossroads where I explore the deep connections between history, politics, religion, and culture. From deep-dive book and film reviews to tracking trends in music and geopolitical history, I unpack the stories and structures that shape our world.
Fight Club is 1999 movie that has entered the zeitgeist. More than two decades after its release it is still being talked about and quoted. I had never watched this movie so I decided to give it a watch and I was intrigued for most of the movie. I wondered what would happen next. Then it all fell apart for me as it was revealed that Tyler Durden didn't even exist. What a cop out by the writer! You have led the viewer on a wild goose chase only to reveal that the goose doesn't even exist. Finding out the unnamed narrator was just seeing things and talking to himself made me lose interest in the movie. Thereafter I lost any connection with Edward Norton character.
Fight Club to me is just about a westerner who has everything whining about how life has no meaning. There are people in the third world starving to death and Fight Club is about a man who is suffering from boredom. And perhaps that is what is wrong with the western world. The rich have everything and have to invent alter egos and a struggle to keep themselves alive. I could only hope one day to have all the material possessions and to be bored and unfulfilled. Boredom beats starvation and poverty in my book. Perhaps the western man requires mandatory military service to keep him alive and motivated and to give him a reason to struggle.
I do believe making Tyler Durden was the wrong move in the movie. The writer took the coward's way out instead of bringing about a proper resolution. If I was the writer I would have kept Tyler Durden as a real character and not a figment of imagination. How would the story end if Tyler Durden is a real person?
Secret Window starring Johnny Depp as a crazy writer is another movie that leads the viewer on and gives a silly plot twist when it is revealed the antagonist is just a figment of the main character's imagination. I was invested in the plot until it is revealed there is no antagonist and the writer Morty Rainey is just a mad man. What a let down! Perhaps Steven King or the screenwriter did not know how to end the movie and decided to just make the antagonist an apparition.
Secret Window was a moderate success and got 46% on Rotten Tomatoes and rightfully so. There is no real plot once it is revealed there is no antagonist. How would I have ended Secret Window? I would have had Morty kill Shooter and bury him in the yard and then proceed to kill the wife and her lover too and bury them there. But I would have ended it with Morty getting arrested and spending the rest of his life in jail or a psychiatric ward seeing the ghosts of the people he murdered.
In conclusion, finding out a character I had invested time and energy onto is an imaginary character ruins a movie for me. It is not a good plot twist and seems like a cowardly way to conclude a story.
Carlito's Way is overrated and badly written in my opinion. The movie does not deserve 84% on Rotten Tomatoes. It begins by showing Carlito, the character played by Pacino getting shot. The whole flashback technique does not work because right away the suspense is gone. You know within five minutes Carlito is not going to make it. So when in the end Carlito is inevitably killed the viewer has seen it coming a mile away.
Secondly Carlito's Way is way too long. The long scenes with Carlito and his love interest stretch way too long. Carlito's monologue in the court room is way too long and unnecessary. The movie should have been done in one and half hours but drags on for two unnecessary long hours. Carlito's Way cannot be compared to Scarface or the Godfather in any way shape or form. If I was the writer for Carlito's Way I would have scrapped the opening scene of Carlito getting shot thereby leaving the viewer in suspense.
However, I did like the plot twist where it is revealed that the lawyer had been snitching on Carlito and how Carlito gets his revenge.
Never Die Alone was a great movie. I always thought it was underrated and deserved more love. Why it got 26% on Rotten Tomatoes is unbelievable to me. It is not too long and wraps it all up in less than 90 minutes. It is similar to Carlito's Way in the sense that they are both gangster movies about redemption where the gangster dies in the beginning of the movie. However, with Never Die Alone the movie continues to hold the viewer's attention because through the journalist listening to the tapes King David's story is retold. Meanwhile there is tension in the air because Mike is hunting Moon looking for revenge. And Never Die Alone ends with a plot twist as it is revealed that Mike was actually King David's son. There could have been a Never Die Alone 2 as the story of Mike continues to see what he does with the money.
As a writer it is tempting to use flashbacks to entice the reader and to give backstory. Personally I am not a fan of giving the reader a taste of the ending in the beginning of the story. Carlito's Way failed to keep my attention whilst Never Die Alone kept the suspense going.
The Ndebele and Shona are two tribes who live in present day Zimbabwe. They have had a controversial history that may include a genocide known as gukurahundi. The Shonas claim that the Ndebeles are colonisers no different from the Rhodesians. The Shonas claim the Ndebeles ran away from Shaka in Zululand, came to Zimbabwe and stole Shona women and cattle and killed thousands f Shona people. Shonas further accuse the Ndebele and Lobengula in particular of selling away the country to the white man for a packet of sugar. Today Shonas are fond of threatening to unleash Gukurahundi part 2 and revel in telling Ndebeles to go back to KwaZulu Natal.
On the other hand the Ndebeles accuse the Shonas of being the colonialists who came from Burundi and only arrived in the land in the 1700s. There is a book written about this theory called the Rebirth of Bukalanga written by Ndzimu Emmanuel. Here is the link https://kalanga.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-Rebirth-of-Bukalanga-Final-Version-on-Word-for-Internet.pdf. The book alleges that Kalanga are the native people of Zimbabwe who built Great Zimbabwe and the Mutapa empire. Meanwhile Shonas are late comers and interlopers who destroy everything they touch. Furthermore, the Ndebeles deny the allegations that Mzilikazi and Lobengula were aggressors who victimised the Shona. In fact, the Ndebeles say, it was the Shonas who gave up the land to the whites without a fight and went further and helped the British colonise Mthwakazi (their name for Matabeleland) in 1890. Ndebeles claim that during the liberation war in the 70s the Shonas were cowards who ran away from the Rhodesians and spent their time at all night pungwes raping girls, drinking beer and eating chicken. The accusations continue as the Ndebeles point the finger at the Shonas for orchestrating a the Gukurahundi genocide that they say claimed the innocent lives of 20 000 and some say 40 000.
Last week I saw a discussion on Youtube about Shona and Ndebele relations between the famous Joshua Maponga and Ndebele guests. The usual talking points about Ndebele aggression and Shona cowardice were brought up. The discussion ended up being a shouting match and was not constructive at all. Insults were thrown around and in the end it was a waste of time. Here is the video
The Youtube video is a damning indictment of the Zimbabwean educational system. It showed how little Zimbabweans know about their history. Maponga was asked what the Ndebele did to the Shonas and he could not answer. Then the Ndebele speaker made it seem like Mzilikazi was a saint who never hurt a fly. Anyone who has read a bit about precolonial Zimbabwe would have known the answer.
If I had been asked what the Ndebele did to the Shona I would have said the following:
Firstly, Mzilikazi is known to have killed Rusumbami, the Nambya chief. It is said Rusumbami had two hearts and Mzilikazi had him cut open to see if it was true. Apparently it was false, Rusumbami had only one heart.
Mzilikazi is said to have traded cattle for Kalanga children. The Kalanga had lost their cattle to Zwangendaba and the Ndebele needed servants so it was fair trade, I guess.
Mzilikazi then went to war with Tohwechipi Chibhamubhamu the last Kalanga chief and the Kalanga was defeated and fled to Buhera.
Then Mzilikazi went to war with Chief Hwata of the Mazoe area. Hwata was captured, brought to Mzilikazi and set free after agreeing to be a vassal of the Ndebele.
Then I would have brought up the crimes of Lobengula who killed the spirit medium Chaminuka, Kawodza the father of Kaguvi, Chief Nemakonde, Chief Chibi Mazorodze who was skinned alive and about 400 Shonas at Fort Victoria in 1893. So no, Lobengula and Mzilikazi were not saints but neither were they devils. They were complex humans like all of us.
If you want to know more about Shona Ndebele relations you can read DN Beach's article Ndebele Raiders and Shona Power here
The Matabele War by Stafford Glass is a great read and gives a detailed account of Shona Ndebele relations, including a gory incident where a runaway Shona slave boy is assegaid to mince meat by Ndebele warriors who refer to Shonas as "food for their spears".
Travel and Adventure in South East Africa by Selous illustrates a world of Matabele atrocities where raiding and killing were sport for the Ndebele. They are numerous accounts of Ndebeles killing innocent people and enslaving women and children. Link below
Another great read is an account of the Matabele raid on Fort Victoria that killed 400 Shonas and has a scene where Ndebeles beg the whites to release the Shonas so they can kill them. Here is the link below
Below is a gory and harrowing account of the Shangani battle between the Ndebele and British which saw Shona slaves trapped between the two fighting factions and where the Ndebele slaughtered unarmed Shona women and children.
Some Shona from Quested’s camp were walking down to the Shangani river for water about 3:45 am and walked straight into warriors of the Isiziba Regiment. Two Shona were quickly killed, but the third managed to get away and ran back to the native laager raising the alarm. The amaNdebele immediately attacked Quested’s kraal and began to kill men, women and children there. Mr Quested, sleeping at the native laager, received the first attack, getting up to find the amaNdebele upon them and stabbing whoever they can find.
Jack Carruthers wrote, “(We) were endeavouring to get the loyal natives to come into the laager, but they were confused, running in all directions. Most of the women ran to the veld, only to be killed by the oncoming Matabele.”
Burnham, “over and above all, the din of the firing rose the shrieks and yells of the friendly natives as they were stabbed and slaughtered by the onrushing Matabele. It was on this occasion that some of the unfortunate friendlies got mixed up with the enemy and were swept up against our laager, willy-nilly, to be shot down by our own Maxim guns.”
So for the Ndebele to act as if Mzilikazi and Lobengula were saints and pan-Africanists is disingenuous. Either they are lying or they are ignorant about their own history which they boast to know so much about.
Personally, I do not blame the Ndebele. It was and still is a dog eat dog world. To the victor goes the spoils. The Ndebele were strong and the Shona were weak. And nature has no pity for the weak. The Shona deserved to be exploited because they did not fight back and chose to be victims. I sometimes wonder why the Shona did not make their own shields and assegais and fight back. Perhaps we really were and we still are spineless cowards. The Ndebeles should not be ashamed of their history not matter how bloody and violent it was.
Furthermore, Ndebele Shona relations in precolonial times were not always acrimonius. There were times when Shonas and Ndebeles got along. For example, Lobengula and Chaminuka were allies at one point. Lobengula would give cattle and wome to Chaminuka and Chaminuka would perform rain making rituals for Lobengula. The Ndebele did offer protection in exchange of tribute from various Shona chiefs like the Hwata dynasty. Sometimes the Ndebele would lend cattle to their Shona allies such as Chief Gomara to be used for milk. One must remember that the Shona were not one united nation and different Shona chiefs often fought each other. Thus the Ndebele would often fight on behalf of Shona chiefs against their enemies. There was even a group of Karangas known as the Dumbuseya who adopted Nguni dressing and raided other Shona communities. There is an account of the Ndebele defeating the Dumbuseya after they attacked Chief Mposi of the Lemba who was an ally of the Ndebele.
The Shona are not entirely blameless. There are accounts of Shonas attacking Ndebele women and hacking off their legs as well as accounts of Shonas like Chief Bere stealing Ndebele cattle. Shonas also peddle falsehoods and distort history. It is a lie that Lobengula sold the country to the whites. He did give them mining rights in exchange of a gunboat, weapons and gold. Some say Lobengula was the only leader in Zimbabwe history to sign a mega deal that brought real development. Nevertheless, Lobengula naively thought the whites would mine for gold and then leave the land. He was mistaken.
Yes it is true that the Shona did not resist the British Pioneer Column. Many of them saw the white men as protectors from the Ndebele and others thought the whites would mine gold and leave thereafter. And it is true that the Shona and the Bechwana helped the whites to defeat the Ndebele who they feared and hated.
It is also true that Gukurahundi did happen and it was unjustified and cruel. There are plenty of books and documentaries about Gukurahundi. Below is a book that gives a vivid account of the genocide. It makes for grim reading but is essential. Gukurahundi in Zimbabwe by Columbia/Hurst.
Below is the best documentary I have seen on Gukurahundi by Zenzele Ndebele
Was it revenge on the Ndebele by the Shona for historical grievances? Was it politics between Zanu and Zapu? Whatever the cause it was wrong. However, I doubt there will be an apology, a truth and reconciliation commission or monetary compensation for the Ndebele genocide. At least not in the near future. Those guilty of Gukurahundi will never be punished or be locked behind bars. There will be no Mthwakazi independence and the thought of a separate Ndebele kingdom will remain a dream. The wounds will continue to fester and there will be no healing. Such is life. Sometimes there is no justice in this cruel world.
However, I do believe the Ndebeles should be included in the national discourse. They should not be treated as foreigners. Matabeleland must be renamed to Mthwakazi, the Ndebele king must be officially recognised and Mzilikazi Day must be recognised as a public holiday in Matabeleland. That is the least the government can do.
Tribal rivalry is commonplace in Africa and the world at large. There is nothing new under the sun and the Shona Ndebele rivalry is strange or peculiar. However, peace must always be the goal. The Hutus and the Tutsi made amends, so did the Germans and the French. And thus, we must strive to live in harmony with each other despite historical differences. The truth is that on the ground most Shonas and Ndebeles get along well. They intermarry, work and live together. It is only in football stadiums and social media where there is acrimony. In reality, we are all Zimbabweans and we must live together whether we like it or not.
If you would like to find out more about Shona culture as well as support my writing career, check out my book series The Shona Chronicles on Amazon. Link below.
Among the Matabele is a short book written by Reverend David Carnegie. It was published in 1894. For anyone interested in precolonial Zimbabwe this is a very interesting read. It gives an account of life among the Matabele before the advent of European colonialism. To read this book is to delve into a world untouched by Christianity and modernity. And what is great about this 136 page work of non-fiction is that you can download it for free here
The Matabele were a proud warrior nation founded by Mzilikazi, a renegade from Zululand who was once a general under Shaka Zulu before they parted ways. 300 Matabele warriors, women and children led by Mzilikazi journeyed north, fighting the tribes they met along the way, gathering the defeated and building a mighty nation. They settled in what is today Pretoria before clashing with the Boers and coming out second best. Then they travelled north again and finally settled in what is today Matabeleland in Zimbabwe.
When Reverend Carnegie lives amongst the Matabele they are now settled in their new homeland and are the masters of all they survey. They live comfortably in the new land blissfully unaware that in a few years their world will come crushing down and Rhodesia will be built on the ruins of the dismantled Matabele kingdom.
Reverend Carnegie spoke fluent Ndebele, lived at Hope Fountain twenty miles from koBulawayo the capital of Matabele. He spent ten years there from 1882 to 1892 and became personally acquainted with Lobengula the king of the Matabele. Carnegie describes the daily life of the Matabele. He mentions how the Matabele are rich in cattle and corn and how there is no hunger poverty in the land. He describes the Matabele as a proud people who consider other tribes as slaves, cowards and dogs. The Reverend writes about how the Matabele live in constant fear of witchcraft and how those suspected of witchcraft suffer a brutal death. Often those who accuse others of witchcraft are inspired by jealousy of their neighbour. Carnegie also discusses how life amongst the Matabele revolves around agriculture and how they are always anxious about the rain and how they fear a drought. Many rituals are performed to insure that the rain comes on time and being a rain doctor was a very lucrative business. The religious life of the Matabele is discussed in detail as well their business and what they did for a living. Making shields, working the land, herding cattle, beer brewing, being a warrior etc.
The book beings with a summary of the rise of the Matabele but it ends with a description of Khama chief of the Bamangwato people. Khama was the complete opposite of Lobengula. He had accepted baptism and become a Christian. Khama was a merciful and benign monarch who hesitated to spill human blood. He was generous and helped the less fortunate. And of course in the end Lobengula and the Matabele came to ruin whilst Khama and his people prospered and even today the people of Botswana live in peace and security.
When I finished the book I got the impression that colonialism was a blessing for the Matabele. The book described Matabele life as uncivilised and primitive. Carnegie describes the Matabele as an "untamable horde of savages" and Lobengula as the "embodiment of the very worst features of the native character". Let me give two examples that illustrates how ignorant pre-colonial Africans were. The Matabele believed the hippo was a sacred animal and killing it without the king's approval would cause a drought and the rain would not fall. One white man was banished from the land because he shot a hippo without the king's consent. Matabele rain doctors would make all sorts of concoctions of herbs, bones etc that would make the rain fall on time. One day a white man knocked down a jar full of rain making medicine and the whole village was afraid there would be a drought. However, the next day there was a lot of rain and the Matabele now thought the spilling of the concoction made the rain fall.
It is possible that the book is written with ill intent. It may be the ramblings of a racist white man who is angry that the Matabele had refused to convert to Christianity. Perhaps Among the Matabele is a polemic work of fiction meant to besmirch a proud and prosperous nation. Or maybe Carnegie was sincere and gave a precise description of life among the Matabele. There is no doubt that the Matabele kingdoms was a well organised, disciplined state which towered above the other African tribes. Unfortunately, history is written by the literate. If the Matabele had written down accounts of their own world, it would possibly be a bit different from Carnegie's account. The lesson here is that if you do not write your own history, other people will write it for you. The important thing is to write your own story and let future generations be the judge.
My personal thoughts
After reading the book I now understand why Ndebeles feel like they must separate from Zimbabwe and create their own state called Mthwakazi. The precolonial Ndebele state was sovereign, powerful, very territorial and well organised. The Ndebeles are a proud people like their Zulu cousins. They take pride in their language, history and culture. Back in the 1800s the Ndebele ruled over the Shona and today the roles are reversed and they lie under the Shona boot. They experienced a genocide called Gukurahundi during the 1980s. Today they feel like they are marginalised. Thus there are calls for a separation from Shona hegemony and Zimbabwe. I cannot blame them. A separate Mthwakazi would probably be a functional state like Namibia or Botswana. However, unless there is war or a miracle I cannot see how Mthwakazi will be free of Zimbabwe. It seems Zanu pf will rule Zimbabwe for the foreseeable future. I cannot see the perpetrators of Gukurahundi being brought to justice and I don't see any monetary compensation and apology of their aggrieved. It is heart breaking but it is the truth.
The best the Ndebeles can hope for is renaming their province from Matabeleland to Mthwakazi, respecting their national holidays like King Mzilikazi day and recognising their king as a traditional leader.
Mbuya Nehanda and Sekuru Kaguvi before their execution
Mbuya Nehanda aka Charwe Nyakasikana is a legendary figure in Zimbabwe history. According to oral tradition she was instrumental in the first Chimurenga war which saw the native Shona people rise up against the British settlers in the wars of 1896 to 1897. Black Zimbabweans call the uprising the first Chimurenga, Ndebeles call it the Umvukile and Rhodesians call it the Rebellion. The various names show how one event can be distorted and miscontsrued and used for political mileage by people. Let us begin with how Mbuya Nehanda is perceived by her supporters.
Zanu pf the largely Shona based political party has lionised Mbuya Nehanda. She is like the Zimbabwean Boudica or the Shona Joan of Arc. Nehanda was apparently a spirit medium whose real name was Charwe Nyakasikana and she was possessed by the spirit of Nehanda. She encouraged and led the people to rise up against the white settlers. She told the warriors that if they had courage the bullets of their enemies would turn to water. Unfortunately, for Nehanda the rebellion was a failure and she was eventually captured and hung on the 27 April 1898. She was sentenced to death and allegedly before her execution she sang, danced and said, 'My bones will rise from the grave.' Nehanda encouraged her people to take weapons and reclaim the land. She was beheaded and her head was carried off to Britain. Why they took her head and will not return it remains a mystery. Nevertheless, today Mbuya Nehanda has a statue placed in the capital city of Zimbabwe. Books and songs are made about her and she has been immortalised.
Statue of Mbuya Nehanda in Harare the capital city of Zimbabwe
The song Mbuya Nehanda
According to her detractors like the Ndebele she was a witch and a STD ridden prostitute. According to the Ndebeles it was another woman who was the central figure in Umvukile uprising. That woman was Queen Lozikeyi, a wife of the deposed Ndebele king Lobengula. Historically, despite her leading the rebellion, she made an agreement with Rhodes and company and escaped the hangman's noose. Today Ndebeles immortalise her in song and poetry whilst Shonas ignore her and most have never heard of her.
Queen Lozikeyi of the Ndebele
However, according to the Rhodesians and their written documents Mbuya Nehanda was neither a witch nor a martyr. DN Beach writes in a document entitle Innocent Woman Unjustly Accused that Charwe was not involved in the uprising. She had a white settler name Pollard murdered because he had lost some of the carriers she had given to him. Carriers being servants who carried things for Pollard. Allegedly, Charwe had supplied Pollard with workers and Pollard had returned to Charwe without the employees. Charwe was so furious she had Pollard killed. According to Beach, during the trial Charwe denied having had Pollard killed whilst witnesses and snitches like Kaguvi said she was responsible for it. According Beach there was no singing, dancing and final speech. Charwe was just an old woman unjustly accused and scape goated for a crime she did not commit. Below is a link to the document written by DN Beach about Nehanda.
There is a book I have been meaning to read called Charwe by an author called Elton Ndudzo. Unfortunately, I can only get it online and it is very expensive to purchase on Amazon with the delivery costs etc. Hopefully, one day I can read it and see how he tackled the Charwe story. I, myself had been meaning to write a fictional story about it but Elton Ndudzo beat me to it. Check out the book if you can.
I hope one day the government can one day bring back her bones from Britain and bury them at Heroes Acre. In a twisted way her bones did rise, just not in the way she meant it. They rose and went over the oceans and I hope one day they rise again and be returned to her homeland. Furthermore, I hope the government can make the day of her death 27 April a national holiday. And they must not forget about the Ndebele uprising and also honour Queen Lozikeyi for her contributions. Maybe one day they can make movies and tv shows about Mbuya Nehanda and Queen Lozikeyi
Was Mbuya Nehanda a liberator, a witch or an innocent woman unjustly condemned? We will never know for sure. But that is the beauty and ugliness of history. It is not an exact science. We can bend it to suit our own needs. Like Napoleon said, 'History is a set of lies agreed upon.' And Goebbels also said, 'Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true.' Thus, Nehanda can be whatever you want her to be.
I remember watching The Sopranos and hearing Tony Soprano talk about how The Art of War was useful to him and more helpful than The Prince by Machiavelli. Paulie Walnuts called Sun Tzu the Chinese Machiavelli. So I decided to read the Art of War myself and boy oh boy, was I disappointed. If you arent a soldier or general fighting on horseback or in the Medieval Age I dont see how this book can be of any use. It is really is the Art of War and only deals with matters of warfare. In my opinion if you want to climb the corporate ladder or steal a girl from her boyfriend the Art of War is not for you.
Art of War is about preparing for war, battle strategies, foraging for food, which terrain to fight on, how to fight with a large army and how to fight with a small army, how to utilise spies etc. But as far as I am concerned it is not helpful to a civilian who is not involved in warfare. Sure, there are few useful quotes from Art of War like the ones below but all in all I didnt find the book helfpful or entertaining at all.
Everyone and their mother has heard of the book The Prince by Machiavelli. It is a classic written in the 1500s. I had always heard about the book. It is quoted in books and movies and is apparently the Bible of politics and power. So I decided to give it a read.
On the positive side, it is a very short read. You can finish it in a few days if you are lazy or you have other things to do. Machiavelli is a good writer and the prose flows well. I am not sure how it feels reading it in 16th century Italian but in English it is very easy to understand. There is no need to keep your dictionary at hand when reading it because it is quite simple and straightforward.
On the other hand, I was a bit disappointed. I was expecting to read the about the dark arts of politicking. Yes, the book gives advice on how to take and use power, but it is far from malevolent. Machiavelli doesnt necessary give instructions on how to be the next Stalin or Hitler. In fact he encourages a leader to be generous and to look first for the people's interests. The worst thing that can happen to a prince is to be hated by the people. He writes that fortresses are useless if the people hate you. So one must be generous, as long as the leader is not using his own money. Machiavelli does not encourage cruelty, he writes that one must be cruel only in warfare and must commits acts of cruelty sparingly.
Machiavelli warns the reader or aspiring prince against taking other people's property or wives and to give the appearance of being a merciful and just leader. He writes how it is a bad idea to rely on mercenaries and other powerful leaders. And he also advises a prince to arm his people and to rely on his own citizens for war. Machiavelli writes how a leader should be wary of flatterers and to be willing to take criticism from advisers.
In conclusion, I think Machiavelli gets a bad wrap. His greatest work has become notorious for allegedly teaching rulers how to be deceitful and ruthless. In reality, the book gives sound advice on how to be a fair but just ruler. However, I do not feel it is applicable in the daily life of an ordinary person. It was written for a member of the Medici family, encouraging him to liberate Italy from foreigners. The famous line about being better to be feared than loved is often quoted but people forget to add that one must avoid being hated.
The 1998 film Sliding Doors starring Gwyneth Paltrow is one of my favourite films of all time. It is such a unique and deep film it is criminal how it got 65% on Rotten Tomatoes. It should have gotten 95% in my opinion. It is a story about how a moment in time can alter one's destiny. The main character Helen played by the beautiful Gwyneth misses her train and that draws into two separate story lines that play out in the movie. I loved the movie and I would have like to see a sequel to see how the relationship between Helen and James played out after the elevator doors closed.
Why is there no Sliding Doors 2, Sliding Doors 3, 4, 5 etc? The idea of missing a train, bus, flight, ship can be made into other stories, movies and tv shows where a character ends up in two or three different storylines and different endings to a movie. The writer Peter Howitt is literally sitting on a gold mine. Or perhaps the world prefers super hero movies to well thought out and deep movies that get people thinking. If I had a billion dollars I would finance Sliding Doors 2 where a character preferably played by Amy Adams misses a flight and that changes the course of her life. Then I would finance Sliding Doors 3 where a character misses her ship and so forth and so on. It could be a never ending movie franchise.
The only thing I did not like about Sliding Doors was the ending where Helen dies in a coma. That storyline did not make any sense. Why kill her off? What was the point of her dying? If it was up to me, one storyline would have had Helen live happily ever after with James. The other storyline would have had Helen dying at the hands of Lydia, Lydia goes to jail, Gerry commits suicide. One storyline ending as a comedy and the other concluding as a tragedy.
The Oscar winning film Parasite is a great film and not only is it entertaining but it is also very deep and philosophical. Though it came out in 2019 I am embarrassed to have only watched it recently in 2024. I must have been living under rock. And anyone who has not seen it should drop whatever they are doing and watch Parasite.
Here is the problem I have with Parasite. There are no parasites in the film. It is a film about a poor family who connive their way into the good graces of a rich family in order to... work for them. Though it is a great movie to call Kim Ki-taek parasites is an injustice. They do honest work for the most part. In the beginning, yes they use other people's wife but at the same time they actually fold pizza boxes for a living and that is not parasitical. Later on the father becomes a driver, the mother a house cleaner, the son and daughter become tutors. In what way are they parasites? Even the rich family Park family are not parasites. The father is an architect and the wife is a stay at home mother who looks after the children. Even the guy trapped in the basement is not a parasite, he bangs his head and turns on the lights for Mr Park and thus is not a virus on society.
It would have made sense for the film to be about politicians or criminals who are the real parasites on society. Perhaps there can be a Parasite 2 where the son Ki-woo does some criminal activities to get rich and purchase the house his father is trapped in. Maybe a Parasite 2 could be about the criminal underworld, the corrupt political class and how they intertwine.
One other thing I did not like was why the daughter Ki-jung had to die. It made no sense to the overall story in my opinion. What did she do to deserve death? I think they just killed her off for the shock value.
In any event South Korean television is slowly surpassing Hollywood in my opinion. I enjoyed Squid Game, Jewel in the Korean palace and Parasite as well. South Korean story telling is unique and authentic. The only film I did not like from South Korea is Old Boy which I thought was nonsensical and vulgar. Fathers sleeping with daughters, brothers romancing sisters is revolting and does not make good story telling in my opinion.
Anyway, if you have not watched Parasite do give it a chance. And I hope one day they make Parasite 2, because the story of Ki-woo is still unfinished.
Lessons
The lesson to be learned from the movie is that be grateful for what you have. In the beginning of the movie the Ki family was poor but at least they had each other. They envied the Park family and wanted to be rich but in the end the Ki family was left devastated. The daughter lost her life and the father lost his freedom. In the end the son and mother were left alone. In life you don't know what you got til its gone. The Ki did not appreciate that they had each other. In life there are things more important than money. Family and relationships are way more important than material possessions.
The second lesson of the movie is that the truth always comes to light. Secrets will always be revealed no matter how much we try to hide them. In the movie the Ki family thought they were clever and could get away with lying but in the end all was revealed. What a tangled web we weave when we conspire to deceive!
Thoughts
Like I said before, I dont think they are any parasites in the movie. The Ki family actually worked for the Parks so in what way were they parasitic. Even the guy in the basement turned on the lights with his head so he was no parasite.
However, the western world is full of parasites. In places like America, criminals sit around in prisons eating and sleeping whilst law abiding citizens have to work to put a roof over their heads. At the bottom you see homeless people who contribute nothing to society but beg and steal. At the top there are old geriatric politicians who do nothing but lie and steal. On one had the west aborts and kills millions of innocent fetuses and on the other hand you allow murderers to live in prisons for the remainder of their useless lives all on the citizen's expense. In Europe you have an assortment of ceremonial parasitic monarchs who do nothing but wave at people and smile whilst doing nothing to justify their allowances. And there is also a coterie or sexually frustrated priests who wear strange robes and pastors in outlandish suits promising an afterlife whilst robbing church members blind. The royalty and the priests are both disgusting parasites too who feed on society whilst contributing nothing. Western civilisation truly has a parasite problem! The West is now a fool's paradise or better yet, a parasite's paradise. The solution would be to introduce the death penalty for murderers and violent criminals as well as cutting off the leeches from the welfare system. In any event it would be interesting to see a movie that really looks at parasitic behaviour, perhaps a movies about the homeless, corrupt politicians and the criminal underclass.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
After a long time of waiting I finally got my hands on the book Nkomo, the Story of my life. And I must say I was not disappointed. The first chapter grabs the reader by the eyeballs. It begins with Nkomo's escape from the newly dependent Zimbabwe as he is pursued by his political enemies. It is ironic, how the country he had fought for, now turns on him. He reminded me of Snowball in Animal Farm and Trotsky in the USSR.
After getting you hooked by the action packed first chapter, Nkomo goes back in time and begins narrating his personal life before politics. He talks about his upbringing, his parents and family life. He also delves into the racial politics of the day. In one chapter he explains how whites evicted the black people from their land and how they had to move elsewhere. Nkomo talks about how education was very important to his parents and for a time he wanted to be a traditional doctor but his parents talked him out of it. The boy Joshua Nkomo becomes a man, he encounters the harsh reality of life as black person in a racist Rhodesia. He must endure as he is paid less than a coloured biracial person even if they do the same job. The book takes you on a journey with Nkomo to South Africa where he furthers his studies and returns to Rhodesia as a man. And almost by fate he is swept up in the political turmoil of the day and evolves into a politician. It seems from his retelling, he had greatness thrust upon him.
The second act of the book is Nkomos fight against Rhodesia, Ian Smith and the racist regime. It is by far the most engaging part of the book as Nkomo plays cat and mouse with the Rhodesian intelligence and finally he spends a decade in the prison that only hardens his resolve. I will give one example of how absurd and cruel the racist system in Rhodesia. It is a moment that made me sad and laugh at the same time. Nkomo is in a car with a sympathetic white person and they stop at a restaurant to eat. The white person goes into the restaurant to eat but Nkomo is not allowed in the restaurant because he is black. While his white friend eats in the restaurant, black workers bring food for Nkomo and he has to eat in the car. This moment made me feel sorry for Nkomo and made me understand what motivated him to fight racial oppression in the land of his birth. I was almost moved to tears. I could not understand how whites could eat food made by black hands but could not bring themselves to sit in the same restaurant as a black person. The double standards and hypocrisy are astounding! Racism of a bygone era all sounds very ridiculous in hind sight.
The third act of the book is Nkomo facing betrayal from former allies and he discovers how bittersweet independence is. He is hounded and treated like public enemy number one and must flee the land of his birth. It is quite ironic that is the British who gave him refuge from his African brothers who sought to destroy him.
All in all, it is a very good book and it is not a waste of money to purchase it. The book is a treasure. In a perfect world the book would be turned into a movie for the world to see. Had things gone Nkomo's way, he would be remembered as Nelson Mandela, father of a nation. But it was not to be. Perhaps Nkomo was too naive and kind hearted for the treacherous world of politics. The problem with Nkomo is that he believed life was like a movie and in the end good triumphs over evil. In reality, bad guys often finish first and good guys finish last. Unfortunately, life especially in politics, is not a fairy tale. Many political careers end in tragedy.
Nkomo, Story of my Life ends on a hopeful note that Zimbabwe would be a paradise but decades later Zimbabwe sinks deeper and deeper into the abyss. If there was a time machine, Nkomo and Ian Smith might have agreed to a three state solution. Divide Rhodesia into Mthwakazi for the Ndebeles, Rhodesia for the whites and Zimbabwe for the Shonas. If there is an afterlife, Nkomo might be turning in his grave, shaking his head and maybe regretting having wasted his life fighting for a free Zimbabwe that was not meant to be.
Moral of the story
First lesson I learnt from the book is that the devil you know is better than the devil you dont know. In life, things can only get worse. Nkomo fought the Rhodesians thinking black majority rule would be better. Only to find out that the Rhodesians were far better than the Shonas. After the so calle independence, the Ndebeles would experience a far worse experience than anything they endured under the Rhodesians, Gukurahundi.
The second lesson is that often your brother is a greater enemy than a stranger. The Ndebeles were abused by their fellow Africans, the Shona way more than by white people. In life it is often your relative who betrays you not a stranger.
The third lesson I learnt from Nkomo Story of my Life is that good does not often triumph over evil. In the end the evil Mugabe was victorious and the noble Nkomo had to flee for his life and watch thousands of his fellow Ndebeles get slaughtered.
The fourth lesson is that to beat the wolf you must become a wolf. Turning the other cheek will only get you slapped. Only a war could liberate Zimbabwe from white Rhodesian rule. Peaceful protests and dialogue would not be sufficient to bring about freedom. If Nkomo hadn't fought a violent war he would have remained a victim of colonial oppression. Sometimes in life it pays to be a bit evil. In the real world the meek do not inherit the earth. Only the strongest survive and the weak get trampled.
Some time ago I read and finished the book Travel and Adventure in South-East Africa by the legendary Frederick Selous. It is a must read for anyone interested in Africa, especially, precolonial Africa. It is a very big book, over 500 pages, but dont let that deter you. The book is impossible to put down. Why? Selous gives the most vivid accounts of his hunting expeditions and his relationships with the Africans. As I read the book I could almost smell, taste and see Africa in its untamed form before colonialism.
Selous is a legend in Rhodesian lore. He is the man who the Selous Scouts, a Rhodesian military outfit is named after. He is the man who led the Pioneer Column as it made its way from South Africa to Mount Hampden. He is the man who gave Mount Darwin and Mount Hampden their names. He is the man who chose where Fort Victoria city nowadays Masvingo would be built. He was an adventurer like Indiana Jones, a fearless wanderer and a man's man. He is what Tony Soprano would call the strong, silent type.
Selous wound up getting killed during the first World War, he was shot by a German somewhere in Tanzania, I think. For a man addicted to adrenaline there could be no other fitting death. I doubt Selous wanted to die in bed at 90 years surrounded by his loved ones. He was a man of action and died the way he lived, on knife's edge. If he was to resurrect and see what Rhodesia had become he would die of shock and agony after realising Rhodesians had lost everything their forefathers had worked for.
The only thing I did not like about the book was the carefree use of the word Kafir. It is on almost every page and illustrates the racist and condescending attitude that white pioneers had towards Africans. I suppose for a man born and raised in Britain to be confronted by primitive Africans it would be expected for Selous to look down on Africans as inferior. However, he is a complex man full of contradictions. On one hand he bemoans the extinction of wild life in Africa and on the other hand he runs around Africa like the Terminator, dispatching lions, leopards and elephants without remorse.
I did learn a few things from the book that I did not know. It is often said Lobengula sold the country to the British. But in the book Selous records events of how Shona chiefs signed treaties with the British in exchange for protection from the predations of the Ndebele tribe. It is easy to understand why Shonas were desperate for that protection because they had suffered greatly under the Ndebele. In one chapter called Matabele atrocities Selous gives the reader multiple accounts of Ndebele savagery.
If you want to know what Zimbabwe was like before the advent of colonialism, look no further than the Travel and Adventure in South East Africa. It is a nail biting, edge of the seat kind of book. Selous flirts with death on almost every page and you feel like you are taking every step with him.
There are so many great Zimbabwean novels that should have been turned into novels already. It is a shame that they have not converted these captivating tales into cinema. In no particular order.
Harvest of Thorns by Shimmer Chinodya
A book about the Rhodesian bush war also known as Chimurenga 2. Action packed and full of drama.
Takadini by Ben Hanson
I read it in a high school. It's about an albino boy growing up in a hostile environment in precolonial Africa.
Nguo Dzouswa by Aaron Chiundura Moyo
Written by Zimbabwean literary legend Aaron Chiundura Moyo. It delves into the treacherous world of politics.
March of the Titans by Arthur Kemp is the complete history of the White Race. To summarise it suggests that all civilisation comes from the White Race and race mixing with non-whites lead to their destruction. The ancient Egyptians were white. The ancient Sumerians were white. The founders of the Chinese civilisation were white. The ruling elite of Roman empire were Nordic whites. And all the great civilisations collapsed when whites race mixed and interbred with non-whites thus bringing their societies to ruin.
Now I am not a historian, archaeologist or biologist so I do not have a clue whether Arthur Kemp is right about whites being the source of all civilisation. However, I did enjoy the book and it is a delightful read. Though it is 1689 pages I sailed through the giant book like it was a pamphlet.
My thoughts on the book
Culture is a product of race
I think Arthur Kemp is right in stating that a certain people will create a society and a culture that reflects their intellectual abilities. Whites will create a social system that is unique to them. Blacks will create a civilisation that mirrors their culture. Asians will construct a civilisation that only they can build. Blacks will never build a white civilisation and whites will never build a Asian civilisation. Different races and groups evolved in different climates and have certain attributes that helped them survive in those environments. When Whites become a minority or disappear, the civilisation will reflect that. When blacks become a minority or disappear their society will go along with them. Which is why whites were able to build a European-like civilisation in Africa and why Africans built an African-like civilisation in the Caribbean.
Whites are too extroverted to form an ethnostate
Kemp mourns the fact that white civilisations get overrun by non-whites and eventually die off. But that is only because whites invite foreigners in. White civilisation follows a cycle. First they expand, then they assimilate non whites and finally they race mix into oblivion. The Greeks, Romans and Indo-Europeans were all expansionist and created multi-cultural empires. And multicultural empires inevitable lead to race mixing. The Chinese and Japanese nations tend to be more introverted. Historically, they have tried to close off their societies from foreigners. The Chinese built a massive wall to keep out the invaders and during the Tokugawa Shogunate the Japanese banned all foreigners. That time of introversion is impossible for whites who have a wanderlust that is a blessing and a curse. Ultimately, it does seem that Europeans will become a minority in their own countries. The fact that they do not have many children certainly does not help.
The "White Man's Burden"
During the age of conquest, Europeans believed that they had to carry the "white man's burden" which meant it was the duty of white people to look after the uncivilised masses and bring them civilisation. It is true that white colonisation brough many benefits but colonisation was certainly not a charity event. Back then the 'white man's burden' was just an excuse to conquer and plunder the world. The "uncivilised" races did not beg whites to come and save them. Back then the Africans, native Americans and Australian Aborigines just wanted to be left alone. Today the coloniser has become the colonised. London looks like Kabul and Paris looks like Lagos. Europe is being quietly conquered by the children of those who demanded freedom from colonialism.
With that said, today the white man's burden is a real thing. Millions flock to Europe and America to look for jobs and a better life. It is very clear that non-whites cannot take of themselves in a highly advanced technological world. Only the North East Asians are capable of maintaining a first world country. Now the white man must decide if he still wants to carry the burden or shut out the non-whites and leave them in the "shit hole" countries to languish.
Sloth and Lust
Sloth and lust have been described as deadly sins. And truly, lust and sloth will destroy civilisation. The need for slaves and cheap labour has been the death knell of many civilisations. If a people are too lazy to do their own menial labour and get slaves and cheap labourers to do it for them, in time the slaves will become a majority. And sooner or later the ruling elite will race mix with the slaves and everything will fall apart. That is where the lust comes in and people begin having sex for fun and not for child making. Homosexuality, porn and prostitution become prevalent and the population decreases.
Ethnostates are the best societies
Multiculturalism does not work. The minority will always chafe and complain about oppression whether real or imagined. Multicultural empires are fragile and can only be held together by brute force and suppression like in Russia and China. On the other hand ethnostates such as Japan and South Korea tend to be relatively peaceful. One cannot be an empire and an ethnostate at the same time and Europeans and Americans are finding out the hard way.
A glimmer of hope?
Orania is an Afrikaner only town in South Africa. There are about 3000 white Afrikaners in Orania. They do their own labour. There are no black garderners and domestic workers there. The sad thing about Orania is that it should have been done sooner. If white South Africans had done their own labour from the get go, South Africa would look like Australia. If Europeans did their own work today the Caribbean islands would be like Europe. But alas, laziness and greedy have led Europe to its darkest hour.
Europe has survived plagues, famines, world wars and violent invasions. But time will tell if they will survive their own misplaced altruism and their need to assimilate foreigners and turn them into English and French citizens. If history repeats itself it seems Europe will go the way of ancient Egypt and ancient Greece. Today Egypt and Greece are a former shadow of themselves. The descendants have fallend from grace and are not as mighty as their ancestors. Spain and Portugal are no longer great empires. Was it because of race mixing or other complex reasons? If Arthur Kemp is right then it was interbreeding with non-whites that spelt doom for European civilisations. Time may prove him right or wrong. Is he a racist bigot or a realist prophet? Is he the voice in the wilderness that no one cares to listen to? Will Europeans disappear into the evolutionary dust bin like Neanderthals? Only time will tell.
If you are interest in learning more about Arthur Kemp, check out this video below.
I had heard about The Northman movie many times from Youtubers and from the critics giving it raving reviews. How The Northman got 90% on Rotten Tomatoes I will never understand. Many times I had heard people say it is a great movie and fans were heaping praise on the film. So I decided to watch the TheNorthman. I was expecting to see something akin to Ragnar from the Vikings series. And I was disappointed. I felt like I wasted 2 hours of my life. The Northman is a poor man's Hamlet. The magic scenes and hallucinations are too long and waste a lot of screen time. The ending was very unsatisfying. I am not one for sad endings that seem pointless. It would have been better if Amleth and Olga escaped and lived happily ever after.
A few things did not make sense to me
Where did the boat come from that got Amleth and his blonde girlfriend, Olga? So Amleth and Olga escape and all of a sudden there is a boat waiting for them?
How could Queen Gudrun not recognise her own son? Even if 20 years had passed, a mother would know her own son.
How did the Slavs and the Viking Scandinavians communicate? I thought they spoke different languages.
Where did the ravens come from that freed Amleth when he was tied up? I can't figure out where there is magic or not in the film and whether it's real or not.
How was one man Amleth able to kill all the men belonging to Fjolnir his uncle? Amleth is a one man army like Rambo who has plot armour until the very end.
The Positives
Though TheNorthman was a awful movie apparently it was an accurate description of life amongst the Vikings and Scandinavians. If The Northman is accurate then the Scandinavians must have been barbarians. All the human sacrificing, cutting heads of horses, raiding and killing show that the pre-Christian Scandinavians were savages. I can now understand and appreciate Christianity for civilising the Scandinavians. Today there are the most peaceful and civilised people in the world thanks to Christianity.
I loved the twist in the story when Amleth finds out his mother was involved in the plot to kill his father. I did not see it coming and it was exciting to watch.
But all in all The Northman took 2 hours of my life I will never get back. I wish I never watched it.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
