From Admiration to Anger: Reactions to the Amy Biehl Amnesty Decision
p. 233-249
Résumé
Two of the most widely-read popular accounts of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) are Desmond Tutu’s No Future Without Forgiveness (1999) and Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela’s A Human Being Died That Night (2003). In their books, both Archbishop Tutu and Dr. Gobodo-Madikizela use the Amy Biehl amnesty case to illustrate the positive impact of the truth commission, because the perpetrators (Biehl’s killers) expressed remorse and the victim’s parents (Linda and Peter Biehl) offered forgiveness, thus laying the foundation for racial reconciliation in South Africa. An examination of the evidence, however, suggests a more complex reality. Some South Africans welcomed the amnesty granted to Biehl’s killers, while others expressed deep dismay. Because public opinion was so divided on the amnesty decision, the Biehl amnesty case symbolizes the mixed legacy of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, rather than its purely positive contribution. This article begins with a brief description of Amy Biehl, the white American Fulbright scholar killed in South Africa’s racial violence in 1993. After reviewing the circumstances surrounding her death, the article summarizes the truth commission’s hearings concerning her murder and the ultimate decision to grant amnesty to four of her attackers. Next the article discusses how Desmond Tutu and Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela–two key members of the commission–have used the Amy Biehl amnesty decision to highlight the success of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Then the article offers a detailed look at how South African citizens reacted to the amnesty decision, based on letters, articles, and columns from the South African press. The article concludes by discussing how the Amy Biehl amnesty case reflected the continued divisions in South African society, despite its use as a symbol for healing.
Texte intégral
1Two of the most widely read popular accounts of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission are Desmond Tutu’s No Future Without Forgiveness (1999) and Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela’s A Human Being Died That Night (2003). In their books, both Archbishop Tutu and Dr. Gobodo-Madikizela use the Amy Biehl amnesty case to illustrate the positive impact of the truth commission, because the perpetrators (Biehl’s killers) expressed remorse and the victim’s parents (Linda and Peter Biehl) offered forgiveness, thus laying the foundation for racial reconciliation in South Africa. An examination of the evidence, however, suggests a more complex reality. Some South Africans welcomed the amnesty granted to Biehl’s killers, while others expressed deep dismay. Because public opinion was so divided on the amnesty decision, the Biehl amnesty case symbolizes the mixed legacy of the truth commission, rather than its purely positive contribution.
2Amy Biehl, 26, was a white American Fulbright scholar who arrived in South Africa in October 1992 in order to conduct research on women’s rights and the transition to democracy. Her commitment to democracy in South Africa developed when she was an undergraduate at Stanford University in California, where she earned a B.A. in international relations in 1989. During her stay in South Africa in 1992-93, Biehl was affiliated with the Community Law Centre at the University of the Western Cape and worked with a number of prominent academics, including Rhoda Kadalie, Brigitte Mabandla, and Dullah Omar. On 25 August 1993, two days before she was scheduled to return to the United States, Biehl was killed in Guguletu (one of Cape Town’s black townships) as she was giving some black friends a ride home. As she drove through the township, a group of black high school students threw bricks at her car, shattering the windshield and forcing the vehicle to a standstill. When Biehl attempted to flee to safety, she was chased, stoned, and stabbed to death by a group of youths affiliated with the Pan Africanist Student Organization, the youth wing of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). On the day of the attack, the youths had attended a political rally and had chanted the slogan ‘One settler, one bullet.’ Biehl’s murder, occurring in the turbulent year before South Africa’s first democratic, all-race election, made headlines all over the world.1
3In 1994-95, four young men were convicted of Biehl’s murder– Mongezi Manqina, Easy Nofemela, Vusumzi Ntamo, and Ntobeko Peni. They were each sentenced to 18 years in prison.
4Following the transition to majority rule, the four men applied for amnesty from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Theirs was a high profile case for the TRC, since Biehl’s death had received so much publicity in South Africa and the rest of the world. At the hearing, which took place in Cape Town on 8 and 9 July 1997, the four applicants testified that the attack on Biehl was politically motivated. As members of the student wing of the PAC, the youths believed that attacks against whites were part of their organization’s strategy to make South Africa ungovernable in 1993. In the words of Ntobeko Peni, ‘Whites were our oppressors. We had no mercy for a white person.’2 During the hearing, Peni and the other three applicants expressed remorse for the killing and asked for forgiveness from Biehl’s parents, with whom they shook hands. After the four men gave their testimony and responded to questions, Peter Biehl addressed the hearing and said that he and his wife would not oppose amnesty if the truth commission granted it. In his words, it was up to South Africans to forgive their own. In a press conference following the hearing, neither Peter nor Linda Biehl expressed any anger toward their daughter’s killers; both voiced support for the TRC and the principle of forgiveness. Later, several high-level leaders of the PAC met with the Biehls and praised them for understanding the context surrounding their daughter’s death. The PAC officials acknowledged that Amy had been an ‘unfortunate’ target.3
5The truth commission granted amnesty to Amy Biehl’s killers on 28 July 1998. Amnesty had not been a foregone conclusion. In fact, out of 7,127 applications for amnesty during the entire TRC process, only 1,146 would be successful.4 The decision in the Biehl case was unanimous. The amnesty committee believed that even though the youths had not been instructed to kill Biehl by the PAC or any other political organization, their act had been politically motivated.5 Peter and Linda Biehl’s reaction to the decision stunned many South Africans. In a press statement, they expressed the hope that their daughter’s murderers would receive support from their communities and families. ‘We hope that the spirits of Amy and those like her will be a force in their new lives, ’ they said.6
6Two of the best-known perspectives on the Biehl amnesty decision were written by leading members of the TRC itself. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, chairman of the truth commission, had the highest international profile. In his statements immediately following the amnesty decision, he used the case to highlight the success of the truth commission. He believed that the Biehl case demonstrated how victims could forgive perpetrators and help promote reconciliation. ‘When you take account of surveys which say the commission has worsened race relations, ’ he said, ‘you take statistics which are generalizations. But when you talk of a specific incident, like the case of Amy Biehl, then you see such magnanimity.’7 Tutu published his account of the TRC, No Future without Forgiveness, in 1999. Written for a general audience by one of South Africa’s most respected leaders, the book reached an international readership. In the book, Tutu points to Amy Biehl’s parents as a vivid example of those who sought reconciliation rather than revenge after their loss. Not only did they accept the amnesty decision, they embraced the families of the young men who attacked their daughter. Then, Tutu points out, they went even further, establishing a foundation named after their daughter to uplift the very townships that produced her killers. They sought to do all they could to end the cycles of poverty and violence that warped the lives of so many black South Africans. In short, Tutu viewed the Biehls as embodying the very spirit of reconciliation that the TRC sought to promote.8
7Reconciliation was an essential element of Tutu’s theology, as was the South African concept of ‘ubuntu.’ Literally meaning ‘a person is a person through other persons, ’ ubuntu stresses the interdependence of humanity and the need for people to treat others as part of their extended family, irrespective of race, color, or creed. Tutu had frequently spoken about the need for ubuntu during the antiapartheid struggle, and the philosophy continued to resonate during the truth commission process. Tutu believed that Amy’s parents personified ubuntu because of their humanity both during and after the amnesty hearings.9
8Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela also admired the Biehls. A member of the truth commission’s human rights violations committee and a clinical psychologist, Gobodo-Madikizela wrote another widely read account of the TRC, A Human Being Died That Night: A South African Story of Forgiveness. Her book was extensively reviewed in both South Africa and the wider world and won deservedly high praise for its insights on forgiveness. Like Archbishop Tutu, she points to Peter and Linda Biehl as prime examples of those who offered forgiveness despite their personal loss:
Stories of forgiveness from the victims of human rights abuses, like that of Amy Biehl’s parents, Peter and Linda Biehl, are significant not only because they mark some of the most memorable moments and moral achievements in the life of the TRC hearings, but also, even more important, because they translate the forgiveness model from high-minded homily to actual practice.
9According to Gobodo-Madikizela, the Biehls demonstrated that ‘it is within the grasp of ordinary people to forgive evil and end generational cycles of violence.’10
10As valuable as the accounts by Tutu and Gobodo-Madikizela are, their views reflect only one side of the spectrum of popular perceptions. South Africans were far from united on how they viewed the TRC in general and the Amy Biehl amnesty decision in particular. The Biehl case, like many others, triggered strong emotions and heated disagreements.
11The debate over the merits of amnesty for Biehl’s killers began during the hearings. Many South Africans reacted angrily to the amnesty bid and to the conciliatory attitude of Amy’s parents. They expressed their attitudes in letters and telephone calls to the media. ‘The killers of Amy Biehl should serve their full term as it was a dastardly act of cowardice and savagery on an innocent and helpless victim, ’ said one woman in Cape Town.11 ‘If amnesty is granted to the killers of Amy Biehl, then the TRC is a complete and utter farce. I suggest the death sentence be reintroduced, ’ wrote another.12 Many white South Africans were particularly incensed that Biehl’s parents seemed so conciliatory. In the words of one Johannesburg area resident,
Amy Biehl was brutally stabbed, shot (sic), kicked and assaulted by a group of thugs. She died of her injuries. Why? Because she was trying to help some people. Now her parents look these thugs in their eyes and forgive them. They even shake hands... Mr. and Mrs. Biehl have, in effect, said to our vast criminal population, ‘Go ahead. Do what you want to do. We will forgive you.’ They have set a tormenting precedent in this country. Who do they think they are? They have no right to instigate further crime. They are, in typical Yankee fashion, completely ignorant of the situation outside of America.13
12Another Johannesburg resident argued that the people seeking amnesty for Biehl’s murder should have been the leaders who incited youths to kill innocent whites, not just the youths themselves. She doubted that the killing had anything to do with politics–it was just a ‘gruesome murder.’14 A mixed-race victim of the PAC’s attack on the Heidelberg Tavern (Cape Town, 1993) also worried that the leaders who ordered misdeeds would avoid the amnesty process. Regarding the Biehl amnesty case, he believed that the applicants would say anything to get amnesty, even if it was untrue, particularly regarding their motives for the attack. ‘It... takes a certain psychopathic mentality to commit this type of crime, ’ he wrote.15
13Some South Africans admired the conciliatory attitude of Peter and Linda Biehl. After Amy’s parents shook hands with the mother of one of their daughter’s killers and hugged some PAC leaders, editors of the Cape Times praised the Biehls for embodying the spirit of forgiveness which the TRC was designed to foster.16 In a letter to The Star newspaper, a black reader praised the Biehls for having been ‘a lesson in humility and Christian value, ’ as opposed to some white South Africans who ignored how apartheid had scarred the lives of black South Africans for so long.17 The deputy president of the PAC, Motsoko Pheko, also praised the Biehls for not blaming apartheid’s victims for the violence of the past. Although he defended the PAC for having waged war against apartheid, he admitted that the killing of Amy Biehl was a mistake.18
14Pheko’s statement sparked a debate about what constitutes a ‘just war.’ In the view of columnist Robert Brand, Pheko had tried to justify some of the ‘worst atrocities’ committed by supporters of the PAC. Just because the anti-apartheid movement might have been fighting a just war–which Brand believed was debatable concerning actions in 1993, when negotiations were taking place–it did not mean that all their actions in that war could be justified. ‘Unjust actions can be committed even by the side fighting the just war, ’ Brand argued. He believed that one could label the killing of Amy Biehl and the massacre of worshippers at St. James Church (Cape Town, 1993) as unjust and criminal without labeling the entire armed struggle unjust or criminal.19
15Not surprisingly, the amnesty decision itself sparked a firestorm of controversy among South Africans. Many critics of the decision refused to accept the TRC’s finding that the attack on Biehl was politically motivated. Rhoda Kadalie, one of Amy’s mentors at the University of the Western Cape, was outraged by the amnesty decision. She described the killing of her colleague as a ‘barbaric, racially motivated murder of the most primal sort.’ In her view, the youths who attacked Biehl were more of an ‘undisciplined and violent mob’ rather than a group of political activists.20 Many other South Africans agreed. Some believed that by granting amnesty to Biehl’s killers, the TRC was giving a green light to criminals to disregard the law. Others argued that because Biehl’s murderers received amnesty, then so should the killers of Chris Hani (whose applications were denied). The prominent Afrikaans newspaper Die Burger reported on the negative coverage of the TRC in a German publication, which noted disapprovingly that Biehl’s killers were granted amnesty despite the fact that they were not instructed by a political organization to attack Biehl. These kinds of reports–plus headlines such as ‘Biehl Killers Let Off ’ and ‘Biehl’s Parents Have Good Wishes for Murderers’–were sure to elicit emotional reactions.21
16Clearly the Biehl amnesty decision was the last straw in the minds of many whites who opposed the truth commission in the first place. Voicing an opinion that was widely shared, one resident of Johannesburg believed that government money was wasted on the TRC because it allegedly increased racial hatred. ‘Now in their ‘so-called wisdom’ they free the murderers of Amy Biehl. I hope they can sleep nights. She was not even a South African and she was helping them, ’ she wrote. Another reader of The Star doubted whether Biehl’s killers were sufficiently remorseful. In a letter to the editor, this reader criticized one of the applicants for allegedly describing his original sentence of 18 years in prison as too harsh: ‘What did he expect after kicking and stoning an innocent young woman to death? A pat on the head or perhaps a medal? The amazing generosity of the spirit of forgiveness is wasted on these murderous brutes.’ One member of the TRC’s amnesty committee acknowledged that the Biehl amnesty decision had aroused a great deal of indignation in South Africa–especially from those who sought to belittle the work of the truth commission in general.22
17Some South Africans expressed mixed feelings about the amnesty decision. Douglas Gibson, justice spokesperson for the Democratic Party, said that although the amnesty decision may have been technically correct, he was personally horrified that Amy Biehl’s killers were allowed to walk free. ‘I have enormous respect for Amy Biehl’s parents, ’ he said, but ‘I’m not sure I would be as forgiving if my child had been stabbed to death.’ This summarized the views of many South Africans. Like Gibson, editors of Business Day voiced their overall support for the TRC, but expressed reservations over the Biehl amnesty decision and the amnesties given to the perpetrators of other PAC-inspired attacks on whites. The victims in those attacks were innocent civilians, not political opponents, the newspaper argued, and the TRC had not adequately explained how these attacks would help the perpetrators achieve their political objectives.23
18Support for the amnesty decision also surfaced. While the PAC welcomed the decision, it expressed regret over Amy Biehl’s death and reiterated its sympathy for her parents. A few days after the amnesty decision was announced, PAC general secretary Ngila Muendane made this statement:
In the process of APLA’s (Azanian People’s Liberation Army) armed struggle, there were of course several mistakes that took place in the choice of targets. The PAC regrets the killing of Amy Biehl and our hearts go out to her lovely parents and all her loved ones back in the US.
19The ANC released a statement saying it respected the amnesty decision, even though the murder was ‘heinous.’24
20Attitudes toward Amy Biehl’s parents following the amnesty decision were as varied as those regarding the decision itself. Some South Africans were deeply troubled by the Biehls’ conciliatory attitude toward their daughter’s killers. Typical was this response from a resident of Randburg who blasted the Biehls for being so forgiving: ‘The Biehls have set an example to all in South Africa... crime pays. One can kick and stone someone to death and get away with it. I am thankful they are not my parents.’ Renate Gruber from Rood-epoort questioned why the Biehls had so much sympathy for their daughter’s killers and suggested that the Biehls didn’t understand South Africa because they didn’t live there. Peter and Linda Biehl wanted South Africans to ‘reach out’ to each other, Gruber wrote, but when their daughter did so, she was killed. ‘The Biehls... say that they have ‘shared South Africa’s pain.’ What nonsense, they do not know what they are talking about. ‘Reaching out’ here has no meaning...’25
21Not all South Africans were so hostile toward the Biehls. In a letter to the Mail & Guardian, Peiso Seele accused white South Africans of hypocrisy. As he put it, whites expressed outrage over the Biehls’ forgiving attitude, but said nothing when black South Africans were equally forgiving. This suggested to him that whites had double standards. Seele referred to a Radio 702 call-in show in which people were invited to express their views on the Biehl amnesty decision. White callers invariably expressed their dismay over the decision and the Biehls’ attitude toward it. Why didn’t whites and ‘their media’ express dismay when the mothers of the Guguletu Seven forgave their sons’ killers? Seele asked.
The difference is that Biehl was white, blonde and blue-eyed. So who cares if a couple of blacks get lynched, massacred, maimed or killed here and there? Those who pontificate about the evils of the Truth Commission have no idea what black people went through during apartheid. Whites need to take a lesson from Biehl’s parents and stop their shameless hypocrisy.26
22But not all whites criticized the Biehls. John Yeld, a columnist for The Star, praised Linda and Peter Biehl for their attitude of forgiveness and for establishing the Amy Biehl Foundation to coordinate humanitarian projects in Cape Town’s black townships. As they honored their daughter’s legacy, they were ‘making an extraordinary contribution’ to South African society, he wrote. Editors of The Star were equally impressed. ‘If all South Africans could be as forgiving as the parents of Amy Biehl, this country would have a bright future, ’ the paper said.27
23The Biehls’ conciliatory gestures toward their daughter’s killers inspired one notorious former security policeman to seek forgiveness from the family of one of his victims. A few days after Biehl’s assailants received amnesty, Gideon Nieuwoudt went to Port Elizabeth to meet with the family of Siphiwe Mtimkulu, whom he killed in 1982. Nieuwoudt had applied for amnesty for Mtimkulu’s murder, but the victim’s family was not yet ready to forgive. When he arrived at the family’s home, Mtimkulu’s son struck him on the back of a head with a vase, fracturing his skull. Apparently Nieuwoudt had hoped that the family of his victim would be as forgiving as the Biehls.28 Editors of the Mail & Guardian found something satisfying about the reaction Nieuwoudt provoked. As they saw it, the leaders of the TRC had admirable motives, but they left the country with a lingering sense that justice hadn’t been carried out for the most appalling of South Africa’s war crimes. ‘The amnesty process, with its requirement that applicants show a political dimension to their atrocities, has undermined the principle of personal responsibility so central to the lessons of Nuremberg, ’ the editors wrote. Their editorial did not refer to the Biehl amnesty decision by name, but it implied that the decision was questionable.29
24One of the most thoughtful reflections on the truth commission was written by Jon Qwelane, an outspoken black columnist at The Star. He offered his perspectives on the TRC as it finished its main work in late July 1998, just days after the Biehl amnesty decision was announced. He noted that the commission had ended in a storm of controversy, just as it had begun, by offering amnesty to the ‘dastardly butchers of St. James Church’ and the ‘callous young murderers’ of Amy Biehl. He recognized that these decisions especially enraged the white South African community, which tended to view the TRC as letting ‘cold-blooded murderers get away literally with murder.’ But he believed that it was unfair to view the truth commission as ‘a friend of black killers and an enemy of whites.’ He reminded readers that several high profile white South African security policemen were granted amnesty, such as Brian Mitchell and Dirk Coetzee, even though they were responsible for many black deaths. Indeed, the TRC even freed some members of the AWB (Afrikaner Weerstandbeweging/Afrikaner Resistance Movement) who killed a black man in a racial attack. ‘So to brand the TRC as a biased and one-sided outfit is to play dangerous games with the truth, ’ Qwelane wrote. ‘If anything, the commission has been over-generous with those who initiated racial aggression, coded it into law, and implemented its more savage intentions with ruthlessness.’30
25Qwelane praised the TRC for uncovering the truth about racial atrocities. That racial reconciliation was still unfulfilled was not the fault of the TRC, he reasoned, but the fault of those South Africans who refused to acknowledge their role in the past. One of the things that bedeviled the truth commission from the start was the issue of ‘moral equivalency.’ In Qwelane’s view, ‘There was always going to be a serious problem in equating the violence of the oppressors with the efforts of the victims to rid themselves of oppression.’ Nevertheless, he believed that the TRC would be judged favorably by history, despite its flaws (Qwelane 1998).
26Amid the controversy surrounding the Biehl amnesty decision, one of The Star’s black readers offered a provocative suggestion– that recipients of amnesty, whatever their race, ‘redeem themselves by openly and even loudly promoting racial reconciliation in this still divided country. That way we will know that what they did was due to the circumstances of the times they lived in.’31 By personally reconciling with Peter and Linda Biehl and by joining the staff of the Amy Biehl Foundation shortly after receiving amnesty, two of Amy Biehl’s killers would do just that.32
27As these perspectives illustrate, the Biehl amnesty case reflected not simply the achievements of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but its controversies. The case provoked debate rather than consensus. The heated reactions to the hearings and the amnesty decision reflected the concerns of some South Africans that political leaders who encouraged human rights violations escaped accountability during the TRC process. The case fueled debates about the kinds of acts that were and were not acceptable in the South African freedom struggle, as the headline ‘A Just War, but Criminal Actions’ suggests (Brand 1997). It fueled debates about the degree of moral equivalence between the actions of oppressors and the oppressed. It fueled debates about the definition of ‘political motives’ and the gray area between politically motivated actions and criminal actions. And finally, the case reflected wider debates about the compatibility of justice and forgiveness, mirroring the central tension in the entire TRC process. The discord following the decision revealed just how far South Africans still had to travel to achieve true reconciliation. Thus the reactions to the Biehl amnesty decision reveal not just the potential for healing and forgiveness, but they reflect the continued divisions in South African society. That is why a study of Amy Biehl’s death and its aftermath is important–it reveals deep fault lines in South African society as it struggled to emerge from apartheid.
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Works Cited
Alberts, C. ‘Teleletters, ’ Cape Times, 8 July 1997.
‘Amnesty for Biehl’s Killers Draws Support and Anger, ’ Business Day, 29 July 1998.
‘Ander Sê, ’ Die Burger, 30 July 1998.
Back, V. ‘Teleletters, ’ Cape Times, 10 July 1997.
Barrett, Lydia. ‘Close TRC and End Tension, ’ letter to the editor, The Star, 3 August 1998.
‘Biehl a Victim of “Struggle,”’ Sowetan, 9 July 1997.
‘Biehl Killers Let Off, ’ Cape Argus, 28 July 1998.
‘Biehl se Ouers Het Goeie Wense vir Moordenaars’ (‘Biehl’s Parents Have Good Wishes for Murderers’), Die Burger, 29 July 1998.
Brand, Robert. ‘A Just War, but Criminal Actions, ’ The Star, 28 July 1997.
10.3171/foc.2002.13.6.9 :Cox, Brian. Letter to the editor, The Star, 14 July 1997.
‘Duitse Blad Doen Skerp Aanval op “Eensydige” WVK’ (‘German Paper Launches Sharp Attack on “One-sided” TRC’), Die Burger, 1 August 1998.
Farber, S.A. ‘Are Amy’s Killers Really Remorseful?, ’ letter to the editor, The Star, 3 August 1998.
Gish, Steven. ‘Reacting to Amy Biehl: Perspectives from South Africa and the United States, ’ in
Offenburger, A., Saunders, C., and Lee, C., eds., South Africa and the United States Compared: The Best of Safundi, 2003-2004, 151-161. Phoenix: Safundi Publications, 2005.
10.1016/0020-1383(83)90103-1 :Glanvill, Lulu. Letter to the editor, The Star, 15 July 1997.
Gobodo-Madikizela, Pumla. A Human Being Died That Night: A South African Story of Forgiveness. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003.
Gruber, Renate. ‘Biehl Family “Sympathy” is Misplaced, ’ letter to the editor, The Star, 5 August 1998.
‘Healing Our Wounds, ’ Sowetan, 31 July 1998.
‘Humbled by the Biehls’ Attitude, ’ Cape Times, 10 July 1997.
‘Insights from the TRC File, ’ Sowetan, 31 July 1998.
January, Michael. ‘Wounds Truth Won’t Heal, ’ Mail & Guardian, 18-24 July 1997.
‘Joernaliste Deel Ervaringe van WVK’ (‘Journalists Share Experiences of TRC’), Die Burger, 5 August 1998.
Kadalie, Rhoda. Interview by author, Cape Town, 7 June 2004.
‘Killers Deserve Justice, Not Forgiveness, ’ Mail & Guardian, 7-13 August 1998.
Long Night’s Journey Into Day. Berkeley: Iris Films/Cinemax Reel Life, 2000.
‘Long Road to Reconciliation, ’ (editorial), The Star, 30 July 1998.
Matebese, Tina. ‘Magnanimity, Not Racism, Has Been Shown, ’ letters, The Star, 25 July 1997.
Mayer, O. ‘Lesson for South Africa: Crime Pays, ’ letter to the editor, The Star, 3 August 1998.
Morris, Michael. Every Step of the Way: The Journey to Freedom in South Africa. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council, 2004.
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, 14th annual W. Averell Harriman Democracy Award ceremony program, 28 November 2001.
‘No Forgiveness for Nieuwoudt, ’ Business Day, 5 August 1998.
‘Our Amy Is There for You, ’ The Star, 29 July 1998.
‘Out of Proportion, ’ Business Day, 30 July 1998.
Pheko, Motsoko. ‘PAC Defends APLA, ’ Sowetan, 24 July 1997.
Qwelane, Jon. ‘How Will History Judge the TRC?’ Saturday Star, 1 August 1998.
Seele, Peiso. ‘Double Standards, ’ letters page, Mail & Guardian, 14-20 Aug. 1998.
‘Slogans Spurred Us to Kill, ’ Cape Times, 9 July 1997.
Thamsanqa, Joseph. ‘Are Amy’s Killers Really Remorseful?’ letter to the editor, The Star, 3 August 1998.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. Decision, Amy Biehl amnesty case, www.doj.gov.za/trc/decisions/1998/980728_ ntamo % penietc.htm
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. Transcript, amnesty hearing on Amy Biehl, www.doj.gov.za/trc/amntrans/capetown/ capetown_biehl01.htm
Tutu, Desmond. Interview by author, Jacksonville, Florida, 29 April 2003.
10.1111/j.1540-5842.1999.tb00012.x :Tutu, Desmond. No Future Without Forgiveness. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
‘Verbatim’ column, Mail & Guardian, 31 July-6 August 1998.
Yeld, John. ‘Biehls Set an Example to All in South Africa, ’ The Star, 30 July 1998.
Notes de bas de page
1 For a discussion of the reactions to Biehl’s death, see Gish, Steven, ‘Reacting to Amy Biehl: Perspectives from South Africa and the United States, ’ in A. Offenburger, C. Saunders, and C. Lee, eds. South Africa and the United States Compared: The Best of Safundi, 2003-2004 (Phoenix: Safundi Publications, 2005): 151-161.
2 ‘Slogans Spurred Us to Kill, ’ Cape Times, 9 July 1997 and transcript, TRC hearing on Amy Biehl, www.doj.gov.za/trc/amntrans/capetown/capetown_ biehl01.htm.
3 ‘Biehl a Victim of “Struggle,”’ Sowetan, 9 July 1997.
4 Morris, Michael, Every Step of the Way: The Journey to Freedom in South Africa (Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council, 2004): 288.
5 TRC, Biehl amnesty decision, www.doj.gov.za/trc/decisions/1998/ 980728_ntamo % penietc.htm.
6 ‘Biehl Killers Let Off, ’ Cape Argus, 28 July 1998. For further perspectives on the Amy Biehl amnesty hearings and the TRC in general, see the documentary film Long Night’s Journey Into Day (Berkeley: Iris Films/Cinemax Reel Life, 2000).
7 ‘Healing Our Wounds, ’ Sowetan, 31 July 1998.
8 Tutu, Desmond, No Future Without Forgiveness (New York: Doubleday, 1999): 152-55 and Tutu, Desmond, interview by author, Jacksonville, Florida, 29 April 2003.
9 National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, 14th annual W. Averell Harriman Democracy Award ceremony program, 28 November 2001.
10 Gobodo-Madikizela, Pumla, A Human Being Died That Night: A South African Story of Forgiveness (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003): 118.
11 Mrs. C. Alberts, ‘Teleletters, ’ Cape Times, 8 July 1997.
12 Mrs. V. Back, ‘Teleletters, ’ Cape Times, 10 July 1997.
13 Cox, Brian, letter to the editor, The Star, 14 July 1997.
14 Glanvill, Lulu, letter to the editor, The Star, 15 July 1997.
15 January, Michael, ‘Wounds Truth Won’t Heal, ’ Mail & Guardian, 18-24 July 1997.
16 ‘Humbled by the Biehls’ Attitude, ’ Cape Times, 10 July 1997.
17 Matebese, Tina, ‘Magnanimity, Not Racism, Has Been Shown, ’ letters, The Star, 25 July 1997.
18 Pheko, Motsoko, ‘PAC Defends APLA, ’ Sowetan, 24 July 1997.
19 Brand, Robert, ‘A Just War, but Criminal Actions, ’ The Star, 28 July 1997.
20 ‘Amnesty for Biehl’s Killers Draws Support and Anger, ’ Business Day, 29 July 1998 and Kadalie, Rhoda, interview by author, Cape Town, 7 June 2004.
21 ‘Biehl Killers Let Off, ’ Cape Argus, 28 July 1998; ‘Biehl se Ouers Het Goeie Wense vir Moordenaars’ (‘Biehl’s Parnts Have Good Wishes for Murderers’), Die Burger, 29 July 1998; ‘Ander Sê, ’ Die Burger, 30 July 1998; ‘Verbatim’ column, Mail & Guardian, 31 July-6 August 1998; and ‘Duitse Blad Doen Skerp Aanval op “Eensydige” WVK’ (‘German Paper Launches Sharp Attack on “One-sided” TRC’), Die Burger, 1 August 1998.
22 Barrett, Lydia, ‘Close TRC and End Tension’ and S.A. Farber, ‘Are Amy’s Killers Really Remorseful?, ’ letters to editor, The Star, 3 August 1998 and ‘Joernaliste Deel Ervaringe van WVK’ (‘Journalists Share Experiences of TRC’), Die Burger, 5 August 1998.
23 ‘Our Amy Is There for You, ’ The Star, 29 July 1998 and ‘Out of Proportion, ’ Business Day, 30 July 1998.
24 ‘Insights from the TRC File, ’ Sowetan, 31 July 1998 and ‘Our Amy Is There for You, ’ The Star, 29 July 1998.
25 Mayer, O., ‘Lesson for South Africa: Crime Pays’ and Renate Gruber, ‘Biehl Family “Sympathy” is Misplaced, ’ letters to the editor, The Star, 3 August and 5 August 1998.
26 Seele, Peiso, ‘Double Standards, ’ letters page, Mail & Guardian, 14-20 Aug. 1998.
27 Yeld, John, ‘Biehls Set an Example to All in South Africa, ’ The Star, 30 July 1998 and ‘Long Road to Reconciliation, ’ (editorial), The Star, 30 July 1998.
28 ‘No Forgiveness for Nieuwoudt, ’ Business Day, 5 August 1998.
29 ‘Killers Deserve Justice, Not Forgiveness, ’ Mail & Guardian, 7-13 August 1998.
30 Qwelane, Jon, ‘How Will History Judge the TRC?’ Saturday Star, 1 August 1998.
31 Thamsanqa, Joseph, ‘Are Amy’s Killers Really Remorseful?’ letter to the editor, The Star, 3 August 1998.
32 At the invitation of Peter and Linda Biehl, Easy Nofemela and Ntobeko Peni began working for the Amy Biehl Foundation in Cape Town in 2000. For information on the Amy Biehl Foundation, see www.amybiehl.org.
Auteur
-
Steven Gish
Auburn University at Montgomery (USA)
Is Professor of History at Auburn University at Montgomery (Alabama, USA) and specializes in the history of South Africa. He is the author of Cultures of the World—Ethiopia (New York: Marshall Cavendish and Singapore: Times Editions, 1996); Alfred B. Xuma: African, American, South African (New York: New York University Press and London: Macmillan, 2000); and Desmond Tutu: A Biography (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004). His current project focuses on Amy Biehl, the young American researcher killed in Cape Town in 1993. He is particularly interested in exploring reactions to her death, and what those reactions reveal about South Africa during a critical period in its history. His article ‘Reacting to Amy Biehl: Perspectives from South Africa and the United States’ was published in South Africa and the United States Compared: The Best of Safundi, 2003-2004 (Phoenix: Safundi, 2005).
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
À la rencontre de la différence
Traces diasporiques et espaces de créolisation
Robin Cohen et Olivia Sheringham Elise Trogrlic (trad.)
2020
L’androgyne dans la littérature britannique contemporaine
Métamorphose d’une figure
Justine Gonneaud
2020
Borders and Ecotones in the Indian Ocean
Cultural and Literary Perspectives
Markus Arnold, Corinne Duboin et Judith Misrahi-Barak (dir.)
2020
Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 1
Diasporas and Cultures of Migrations
Judith Misrahi-Barak et Claudine Raynaud (dir.)
2014
Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 2
Diaspora, Memory and Intimacy
Sarah Barbour, David Howard, Thomas Lacroix et al. (dir.)
2015
Diasporas, Cultures of Mobilities, ‘Race’ 3
African Americans and the Black Diaspora
Corinne Duboin et Claudine Raynaud (dir.)
2016
Ethics of Alterity, Confrontation and Responsibility in 19th- to 21st-Century British literature
Jean-Michel Ganteau et Christine Reynier (dir.)
2013
