On August 16, 2012 tensions escalated regarding a strike in a platinum mine in Marikana, South Africa in which people had already been killed. Events took a tragic turn as 34 striking miners were shot to death by South African police personnel on that terrible day. PCG mentioned it on page 7 of the August 18, 2012 issue of The Trumpet Weekly. (Note: the link will download the issue as a PDF file.)
On that page there are two little articles about South Africa. The first article PCG's 1% selected refers not to the mass loss of life at Marikana, but the murder of a white farmer. Then secondly the massacre at Marikana is mentioned.
Why is the mass loss of life at Marikana mentioned second? How is it that PCG's editors decided to place the murder of one white man first and then mention the killing of 34 black men second? This is seems to be a terribly skewed way of assessing the importance of events.
Of course any murder is as terrible as any other murder. But this is about why PCG's 1% chose to mention the murder of one white man first and then the massacre of 34 black men. Do they think black lives do not matter as much as that of whites?
It is also worth noting the article describing the Marikana massacre and the peculiar distortion PCG's 1% imposed on it. PCG's Trumpet Weekly quotes an article from the AP. The following words from that excerpted article may be seen:
Thursday’s shootings are seen as a microcosm of the myriad problems facing South Africa 18 years after white ... rule ended, including growing inequality....What was omitted in between "white" and "ruled"? Here is what PCG's editors left out.
Thursday's shootings are seen as a microcosm of the myriad problems facing South Africa 18 years after white racist rule ended, including growing inequality between a white minority joined by a small black elite while most blacks endure high unemployment and inadequate housing, health care and education. ([NOTE: Contains graphic content.] Associated Press, August 17, 2012.)Astoundingly even in 2012 PCG's 1% cannot bring themselves to admit to their readers that the Apartheid regime was racist. Do they think it is perfectly fine and proper for people of a certain color to be forced to live in certain areas and forced to use certain facilities while people of another color get to enjoy more finer facilities? That is what happened under Apartheid.
Are PCG's 1% are offended that an AP reporter should call such a system racist? Do PCG's 1% absurdly imagine that Apartheid was somehow not racist? What a terrible and shameful way to view Apartheid.
The next issue of PCG's Trumpet Weekly contains an article by Robert Morley about the Marikana massacre. But since PCG's 1% devoted an article of their own to this important topic why was the Marikana massacre mentioned second in the August 18, 2012 issue? That seems quite a strange way to react to the violent killing of 34 human beings.
But PCG has a long and shameful history of sympathizing with the Apartheid regime in South Africa. More information regarding this disturbing aspect of PCG's ideology may be seen in the following posts: