Africans Are Cheering for Mexico Instead of South Africa at the World Cup

 Why Some Why Some Africans Are Cheering for Mexico Instead of South Africa at the World Cup

As South Africa walks onto the World Cup stage, many expected the rest of Africa to unite behind Bafana Bafana. But across social media, football watch parties, and group chats from Lagos to Kampala, some African fans are doing the unthinkable: cheering for Mexico.

This is not really about football.

For many Africans, support for Mexico is a reflection of lingering anger over South Africa’s long history of xenophobic violence against fellow Africans. Over the past two decades, migrants from Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Mozambique, Somalia, Ethiopia, Malawi, and other African countries have repeatedly faced attacks, looting, intimidation, and displacement in South Africa. (South African History Online)

The most infamous outbreak occurred in 2008, when xenophobic violence spread across the country. At least 62 people were killed, thousands were injured, and more than 100,000 people were displaced. Many of the victims were African migrants who had come to South Africa seeking safety and economic opportunity. (Human Rights Watch)

The violence did not end there. Further waves of attacks erupted in 2015 and 2019, with foreign-owned businesses looted and migrants targeted in several cities. Human rights organizations have documented repeated patterns of hostility toward African immigrants, particularly those from other African nations. (ResearchGate)

Even in 2026, the issue remains painfully relevant. Recent reports describe renewed anti-immigrant violence and growing fear among African migrants, prompting countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Malawi, and Mozambique to help their citizens return home. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has publicly condemned xenophobic attacks and vowed action against groups responsible for the violence. (Reuters)

For some African football fans, these events have not been forgotten. They see South Africa’s World Cup campaign through a broader lens. Their support for Mexico is not necessarily an endorsement of Mexico itself. Rather, it is a symbolic protest against what they view as years of mistreatment of fellow Africans.

Of course, millions of Africans continue to support South Africa and reject the idea that an entire nation should be judged by the actions of violent groups. But the divided loyalties reveal a difficult truth: football does not exist in a vacuum. History, politics, and collective memory often travel with the teams onto the pitch.

This World Cup has reminded us that while football can unite people, it can also expose unresolved wounds. For some Africans, cheering for Mexico is less about defeating South Africa and more about expressing solidarity with those who once felt unwelcome in the country many expected them to support.

The World Cup stage, many expected the rest of Africa to unite behind Bafana Bafana. But across social media, football watch parties, and group chats from Lagos to Kampala, some African fans are doing the unthinkable: cheering for Mexico.

This is not really about football.

For many Africans, support for Mexico is a reflection of lingering anger over South Africa’s long history of xenophobic violence against fellow Africans. Over the past two decades, migrants from Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Mozambique, Somalia, Ethiopia, Malawi, and other African countries have repeatedly faced attacks, looting, intimidation, and displacement in South Africa. (South African History Online)

The most infamous outbreak occurred in 2008, when xenophobic violence spread across the country. At least 62 people were killed, thousands were injured, and more than 100,000 people were displaced. Many of the victims were African migrants who had come to South Africa seeking safety and economic opportunity. (Human Rights Watch)

The violence did not end there. Further waves of attacks erupted in 2015 and 2019, with foreign-owned businesses looted and migrants targeted in several cities. Human rights organizations have documented repeated patterns of hostility toward African immigrants, particularly those from other African nations. (ResearchGate)

Even in 2026, the issue remains painfully relevant. Recent reports describe renewed anti-immigrant violence and growing fear among African migrants, prompting countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Malawi, and Mozambique to help their citizens return home. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has publicly condemned xenophobic attacks and vowed action against groups responsible for the violence. (Reuters)

For some African football fans, these events have not been forgotten. They see South Africa’s World Cup campaign through a broader lens. Their support for Mexico is not necessarily an endorsement of Mexico itself. Rather, it is a symbolic protest against what they view as years of mistreatment of fellow Africans.

Of course, millions of Africans continue to support South Africa and reject the idea that an entire nation should be judged by the actions of violent groups. But the divided loyalties reveal a difficult truth: football does not exist in a vacuum. History, politics, and collective memory often travel with the teams onto the pitch.

This World Cup has reminded us that while football can unite people, it can also expose unresolved wounds. For some Africans, cheering for Mexico is less about defeating South Africa and more about expressing solidarity with those who once felt unwelcome in the country many expected them to support.

Today, we are all Mexican.”

Somewhere across Africa, a few people just celebrated like Mexico won the World Cup. 😭🇲🇽

“Today, we are all Mexican.”

Years of hearing stories about xenophobia, deportations, burnt shops, and “foreigners must go” had some Africans watching this match with unusual interest.

Football is football—but memories are memories. 👀

Congratulations Mexico. Africa’s honorary cousin for the day. 🇲🇽🤝🌍😂

#WorldCup #Mexico #SouthAfrica #FootballBanter

Some Africans Are Cheering for Mexico Instead of South Africa

 Some Africans Are Cheering for Mexico Instead of South Africa

As South Africa takes the field at the World Cup, not every African fan is behind Bafana Bafana. For some, their support for Mexico has little to do with football and everything to do with memory.

Over the years, South Africa has experienced several waves of xenophobic violence targeting fellow Africans from countries such as Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Mozambique, Somalia, and Ethiopia. The most notorious attacks in 2008 left more than 60 people dead and displaced thousands. Similar outbreaks occurred again in 2015 and 2019.

Many Africans have not forgotten those images.

For these fans, supporting Mexico is a symbolic way of expressing frustration with a country they believe has often failed to welcome fellow Africans. It is less about Mexico and more about sending a message.

Of course, millions across the continent still support South Africa and believe football should rise above politics. But the mixed loyalties show that history matters.

At this World Cup, some Africans are cheering for Mexico not because they are against South Africa’s football team—but because they have not forgotten how some Africans were treated in South Africa.

Fame Isn’t Character: The Problem With Sheebah as a Role Model

 What makes Sheebah fascinating is that she stands at a crossroads symbolic of many Ugandan millennials. She represents a generation that fought hard to escape poverty and social restriction, yet now faces a different challenge: what comes after survival? Once the applause fades and the rivalries age out, what remains?

This is where young Ugandan women should pay attention.

Aspiration should move beyond fame alone. A girl in Kampala, Mbarara, Gulu, or Masaka should dream not only of becoming famous, but becoming formidable — educated, financially literate, emotionally grounded, spiritually aware, and culturally influential. Uganda’s future female icons should be CEOs, filmmakers, architects, diplomats, scholars, investors, and innovators alongside musicians and entertainers.

Entertainment matters, yes. But entertainment should not become the ceiling of imagination.

The tragedy of many celebrity cultures is that they freeze women at the age of their public breakthrough. Society allows male artists to evolve into moguls and statesmen while demanding women remain permanently dramatic, desirable, and controversial. Sheebah’s recent interviews unintentionally expose this trap. The audience still craves the old feuds even while the woman herself appears to be searching for deeper meaning.

And perhaps that is why the conversation around her feels emotionally charged. Ugandans are not merely debating an artist. They are debating what womanhood itself should evolve into in a rapidly modernizing African society.

The next generation deserves a broader script.

Holding Deadbeat Fathers Accountable

 The Ghost of a Father: A Portrait of a Deadbeat Dad

Fatherhood is often romanticized as a pillar of strength, wisdom, and guidance. The image of a father lifting his child onto his shoulders, teaching life’s lessons, and being the unwavering protector is deeply embedded in cultural narratives across the world. However, for many children, this image remains nothing more than a mirage, a cruel illusion overshadowed by absence, neglect, and broken promises.

The deadbeat father is a phenomenon that has existed for generations, but in the age of social media, his actions (or lack thereof) are no longer hidden behind closed doors. Public figures, everyday individuals, and victims of such abandonment take to platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to voice their frustrations, exposing the painful realities of growing up fatherless. One such voice that has emerged loudly is Aba Mayanja, a man who has become known for his raw, unfiltered social media rants about his absentee father. Through his pain, he paints a picture that resonates with many—children who have been forced to grow up in the void left by a man who should have been present.

The Making of a Deadbeat

A deadbeat father is not simply a man who walks away. He is a man who makes the conscious decision to neglect his responsibilities. He is not absent because he has passed away, been forcibly separated, or faces legitimate barriers—he is absent because he chooses to be. His presence is a ghostly one, haunting but never materializing into real support.

Some deadbeat fathers disappear early in their child’s life, refusing to acknowledge their existence from birth. Others linger just long enough to make promises they never intend to keep, reappearing sporadically only to leave again. They might send the occasional message, offer a half-hearted apology, or play the victim when confronted about their neglect. But their actions—or lack thereof—speak louder than any words they mutter.

The Emotional Toll on the Child

For a child, the absence of a father is not just an empty chair at the dinner table; it is a lifelong wound that festers in different ways. The effects of a deadbeat dad seep into a child’s self-esteem, their ability to trust, and their understanding of love. They grow up questioning their worth, wondering why they were not enough for their father to stay.

Aba Mayanja’s rants reveal the deep resentment and anguish that come from being the child of a man who refused to take responsibility. His words are filled with an aching sense of betrayal, a pain that has shaped his identity and influenced the way he sees the world. Like many others in his situation, he battles with the burden of fatherly abandonment, carrying the weight of unanswered questions and unfulfilled needs.

Studies have shown that children from fatherless homes are more likely to struggle with mental health issues, educational setbacks, and difficulties in forming healthy relationships. The longing for a father’s approval can drive them to seek validation in destructive ways, whether through toxic relationships, reckless behavior, or a deep-seated anger that they struggle to control.

The Excuses and Justifications

Deadbeat fathers have an arsenal of excuses to justify their absence. Some blame the mother, claiming she made it too difficult for them to be involved. Others cite financial struggles, pretending that if they cannot provide lavishly, they cannot provide at all. Then there are those who shift the blame entirely onto the child, acting as though their own offspring should be the ones to reach out and mend the broken relationship.

But no excuse can erase the reality of an abandoned child’s pain. No justification can fill the void left behind. Being a father is not about convenience; it is about responsibility. It is about showing up even when it is hard, even when circumstances are not ideal. A father’s love is meant to be unconditional, not contingent on perfect conditions.

The Cycle of Generational Neglect

One of the most tragic aspects of fatherly abandonment is its tendency to repeat itself across generations. A boy who grows up without a father often struggles to understand what it means to be a father himself. He may fear repeating the same mistakes or, conversely, may follow in the very footsteps of the man he resents. The absence of a strong paternal figure creates a vacuum that is hard to fill.

Some break the cycle, determined to be everything their father was not. They vow to show up, to be present, to love their children fiercely and unconditionally. Others, however, remain trapped in the patterns they were exposed to, perpetuating the pain instead of healing from it.

Holding Deadbeat Fathers Accountable

In today’s digital age, deadbeat fathers can no longer hide as easily as they once could. Social media has given a voice to the abandoned, providing a platform to expose, call out, and demand accountability. Aba Mayanja’s rants are a testament to this shift—he is not just venting his frustrations; he is shedding light on a widespread issue that affects countless lives.

The law also plays a role in holding these men accountable. Child support systems exist to ensure that financial responsibilities are met, but they cannot force a man to be emotionally present. No amount of court-ordered payments can replace the security and guidance of a loving father.

The Strength of the Single Mother

For every deadbeat father, there is often a mother who picks up the pieces. Single mothers are the unsung heroes in the lives of abandoned children, taking on roles meant to be shared. They provide, nurture, discipline, and support, all while battling their own disappointments and struggles.

Yet, no matter how strong a mother is, she cannot fully replace a father’s role. She can love unconditionally, but she cannot teach a son how to be a man in the way a father should. She can provide wisdom, but she cannot model the partnership of a healthy relationship between a man and a woman. The absence of a father leaves gaps that, no matter how hard she tries, she cannot fully fill.

Healing and Moving Forward

For those who have grown up with a deadbeat father, healing is a personal journey. Some find closure in forgiveness, choosing to release the resentment and pain. Others find healing in success, proving to themselves that they were always enough, that they never needed a father to define their worth.

Therapy, self-reflection, and support systems play crucial roles in this healing process. The pain of abandonment does not disappear overnight, but with time, it can be transformed into strength.

Conclusion

A deadbeat father is more than just an absent man; he is a wound that lingers, a disappointment that echoes through generations. The stories of men like Aba Mayanja serve as powerful reminders of the impact a father’s neglect can have. But they also serve as a call to action—a challenge for men to do better, to be better, and to recognize that fatherhood is not a choice but a duty.

For every child abandoned by a deadbeat dad, there is hope. Hope in breaking cycles, in healing, and in building a future where fatherhood is honored, not discarded. The wounds may never fully heal, but they can serve as a testament to resilience, a reminder that even in the absence of a father, one can still rise, thrive, and create a life defined by strength rather than loss.

No man should be worshipped. 

I’m Jeremy Jjemba 

From Wild Shrub to Cultivated Crop: Coffee, Institution, and Moral Order in Precolonial Buganda

 

Spiritual cosmology in Buganda was inseparable from agricultural practice. Farming unfolded not against an abstract calendar but within a living cosmological order in which land, sky, water, plants, animals, and ancestors communicated continuously. To cultivate was to read signs, to interpret rhythms, and to act in accordance with forces that could not be commanded but could be understood.

In the absence of written calendars, Baganda farmers relied on ecological cues that were at once practical and spiritual. Time was read, not counted. The environment itself functioned as an archive—one that stored knowledge in flowering cycles, animal behavior, and celestial movement.

The blooming of the nsuku tree signaled the opening of the planting season. This flowering was not treated as coincidence. It was interpreted as land readiness. Elders understood that soil moisture, temperature, and seasonal transition converged at this moment. To plant before the nsuku bloomed was to challenge the land’s readiness; to delay long after its bloom was to risk missing the agricultural window. The tree thus disciplined labor through observation rather than command.

The croaking of frogs announced the approach of heavy rains. Frogs, emerging from wetlands and ditches, served as messengers between water and land. Their sound indicated not merely rainfall, but saturation. Farmers listened for intensity, duration, and location of croaking to judge whether rains would be brief or sustained. Ritual restraint accompanied this observation: certain plantings were delayed until frogs spoke fully, ensuring that seeds would not rot or be washed away.

The appearance of particular stars guided harvest periods. Night skies were read as carefully as gardens. Elders and fishermen, accustomed to navigating Lake Victoria by stars, transmitted this knowledge inland. Star position and brightness marked transitions between abundance and scarcity. Harvests were timed not only to crop maturity but to cosmological alignment, reinforcing the belief that success required harmony between earth and sky.

Bird migration patterns predicted famine or abundance. The arrival or absence of specific birds signaled ecological stress or recovery across regions. Birds were understood as travelers who carried information from distant landscapes. Their presence warned farmers to diversify crops, preserve seed stock, or reduce ceremonial expenditure in anticipation of hardship. Their abundance reassured communities that storage could be relaxed and rituals expanded.

These cues did more than inform technique. They structured morality. Acting against ecological signs was interpreted as arrogance. Failure was not random; it was meaningful. When crops failed despite adherence to cues, the explanation was sought not in incompetence but in disrupted harmony—prompting ritual consultation rather than punishment.

Seasonal rituals synchronized households. Planting, harvesting, and fallowing were coordinated across communities, preventing destructive competition for labor and resources. This synchronization minimized conflict, regulated access to shared wetlands and forests, and ensured collective preparedness for environmental shocks.

Colonial administrators mistook this system for superstition. In reality, it was a decentralized knowledge network—distributed, adaptive, and resilient. Written calendars could fix dates, but they could not respond to sudden shifts in rainfall, animal behavior, or soil condition. Ecological time remained superior to bureaucratic time.

Coffee’s eventual domestication intersected with this system. Coffee planting was evaluated against nsuku bloom cycles. Harvesting was adjusted according to bird signals and rainfall intensity. Even as coffee later became regimented under colonial schedules, farmers quietly continued to consult ecological signs, preserving older rhythms beneath imposed calendars.

Seasonal ritual thus sustained agricultural intelligence without institutions that recorded it formally. Knowledge survived because it was practiced. Memory endured because it was embodied. The land itself instructed those willing to listen.

Spiritual cosmology did not distract from farming. It made farming possible.

The land spoke.

The sky answered.

The people responded.

Thank you for reaching the end.

I am Jeremy Jjemba

Everyone Loves Coffee! 

 

the Logic of Power in Uganda

Rutamaguzi, Elections, and the Logic of Power in Uganda

In an election year, words are never innocent. When President Yoweri Museveni invoked Rutamaguzi while addressing the opposition, he was not reaching for folklore out of nostalgia. He was redefining the rules of political legitimacy at a moment when they are most contested.

Elections are dangerous for long-ruling power because they invite moral judgment. They allow challengers to speak in the language of justice, sacrifice, faith, and dignity. In Uganda, that language has increasingly been amplified by religious leaders, civil society, and a youthful opposition that frames its struggle as ethical rather than merely political. Museveni’s response was not to argue morality, but to remove it from the conversation altogether.

Rutamaguzi provides the perfect tool for that removal. He is not a historical hero with a biography, but an archetype drawn from oral political memory: the enforcer who restores order when persuasion fails. He represents authority that does not ask for permission, power that does not require approval, and order that is imposed rather than negotiated. By invoking Rutamaguzi, Museveni was quietly saying that politics is not a contest of righteousness, but a struggle over who commands the state.

This is not an abstract idea; it mirrors the logic of Museveni’s own rule. He did not come to power through elections but through armed struggle. Control preceded consent. Authority was established first and later clothed in constitutions, referenda, and ballots. Elections, in this framework, do not generate power; they confirm a power that already exists. That is the Rutamaguzi logic in modern form.

Over time, this logic has shaped governance itself. Politics has been steadily securitized. Opposition activity is often framed as a threat to stability. Protest becomes disorder; dissent becomes destabilization. The language of national security replaces the language of debate. This is not accidental. It reflects an understanding of politics as a domain where order must be protected at all costs, even at the expense of dialogue.

The invocation of Rutamaguzi also explains Museveni’s insistence that religious leaders remain in “spiritual matters.” Moral critique is dangerous to a power system built on control rather than consent. By separating spirituality from politics, Museveni strips religious voices of political legitimacy while preserving the state’s coercive authority. Kaloli Lwanga may inspire souls, but Rutamaguzi commands bodies. The distinction is deliberate.

That is why this reference emerges now, in an election year. As moral narratives grow louder and scrutiny intensifies, Rutamaguzi functions as both warning and justification. It signals that authority will not be negotiated through conscience and that order will be preserved regardless of sentiment. Any future restrictions, arrests, or force can then be framed not as repression, but as the maintenance of stability.

Yet this framing is historically selective. Pre-colonial Uganda never cleanly separated power from morality. Kings ruled through force, yes, but also through ritual, belief, and moral legitimacy. Authority was as spiritual as it was coercive. By extracting only the coercive strand and presenting it as tradition, Museveni simplifies history to serve present needs.

Ultimately, invoking Rutamaguzi is not about the past. It is about the present and the future. It reveals how Museveni understands power, how he responds to challenge, and how he wants elections to be interpreted. Not as moments when authority is granted, but as moments when authority is tested—and, if necessary, enforced.

In that sense, Rutamaguzi is less a figure from oral tradition than a mirror. He reflects a system of rule that values order over consent, control over conscience, and stability over moral approval. And when a leader reaches for such a mirror in an election year, he is telling the country something essential: this will not be a contest of ideas alone, but a contest over who holds power—and how far they are willing to go to keep it.