Back in the heady days after the 1994 election South Africa professed to base its foreign policy on human rights principles. When the Nigerian government executed activist and environmental journalist, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Nelson Mandela called it a “heinous act”. But Thabo Mbeki soon put a stop to such folly, aligning South Africa instead with the Africa block and with its fair share of tyrants and dictators – regardless of any human rights considerations.
It was therefore not surprising when South Africa abstained from endorsing the first ever statement on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (which was backed by 66 states including six African countries) read at the United Nations General Assembly at the end of 2008.
The latest outrage came this week when the South African representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Jerry Matjila, refused to support efforts at the UN to protect gay men and lesbians against discrimination. The council was discussing a report of the Special Rapporteur on Racism, Githu Muigai, of Kenya, which said that “the identity of each individual is made up of a multitude of components, such as gender, age, nationality, profession, sexual orientation, political opinion, religious affiliation and social origin”. Replying later in the debate, Matjila said the rapporteur’s inclusion of sexual orientation “demeans the legitimate plight of the victims of racism”.
To its credit, the Democratic Alliance – via a statement issued by Kenneth Mubu, a DA MP – deplored this cowardly and reactionary position taken by the South African government and made the following telling point:
In the wake of the recent events in Malawi and Uganda, South Africa’s rejection of the inclusion of sexual orientation as a means of discrimination seems like an act of appeasement to certain African countries with poor human rights records, rather than taking the principled position, and setting an example on human rights which other African states could look to.
Mr. Matjila’s objection and the reasons given for it, display a rather shocking lack of respect for human rights and the values enshrined in our Constitution. His view also endorses a rather formalistic and very limited understanding of discrimination that cannot be squared with the expansive view regarding discrimination endorsed by our Constitution as interpreted by South African courts or by international human rights bodies and experts.
If Mr Matjila really believes that linking sexual orientation discrimination with racial discrimination demeans the victims of racial discrimination, he is obviously a bigot and a homophobe. His view can only be sustained if one believes that there is something inherently shameful or disgusting about being gay or lesbian and that the victims of racial discrimination would therefore be somehow tainted by being associated with the plight of a small and vulnerable minority persecuted in many parts of the world.
If this view is shared by the South African government and of our President, then our government has been highjacked by a group of reactionary, hateful, bigots. If it is not a view shared by our government, it has a duty to clarify its position. As it stands, it is very difficult not to conclude that the government has turned its back on gay and lesbians in South Africa and elsewhere in the world, and that it has endorsed the views espoused by religious hate-mongers and fanatics – the Sarah Palins of the USA and the Yoweri Museveni’s from Uganda, amongst them.
Do we really want our government to become bedfellows of such unsavory characters?
The stance of the South African government is also in conflict with the accepted principle – endorsed by our constitutional text as well as international human rights bodies – that discrimination on different grounds often intersect and that it can only be rooted out if this intersectionality is recognized and addressed.
Individuals are often discriminated against for more than one reason, which makes the discrimination suffered by the victim so much more egregious. A black woman, say, will often experience discrimination both because she is a women and because she is black. It is now widely accepted that a failure to recognize this fact can lead to a masking of some kinds of discrimination and can lead to the endorsement of certain types of discrimination against a vulnerable group.
This is why section 9(3) of the South African Constitution prohibits anyone from discriminating against somebody “on one or more grounds”. One can therefore allege that one has been discriminated against on several grounds, which prevents a court from turning around and saying, well, you claim to have been discriminated against because you are a woman, but you were really discriminated against because you are black, so you lose your case.
It is impossible to compartmentalize the kinds of discrimination suffered by victims (as the South African representative was trying to do) because the degree of the harm suffered by victims often depend on a multiplicity of factors. The cumulative effect of such overlapping discrimination can often be harsh or even deadly – as the family of Banyana Banyana player, Eudy Simelane – who was raped and murdered because she happened to be a black lesbian – can all too tragically attest.
The Report by the Special Rapporteur on Racism was obviously recognising this problem, but the South African representative was either too reactionary or utterly lacking in understanding of the real life nature of discrimination, to recognize or accept this. It is bitterly ironic that a representative from South Africa, a country with a long and sickening history of treating some people as second class citizens because of one or more attributes or characteristics, has displayed such ignorance about the way in which discrimination operates in real life.
It might be that Mr Matjila is a lovely and caring person with love in his heart and that he was merely saying such reactionary and ignorant things because of instructions from Pretoria. It might also be that those who sent the instructions from Pretoria are deeply committed to equality and abhor discrimination of any kind, but have decided to act in this unprincipled and immoral manner, denying the human dignity of a section of the worlds population, in order to gain some diplomatic advantage with tyrants and dictators elsewhere in Africa.
That, however, would not excuse the impugned behavior. It would be up there with the actions of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher who supported the apartheid government because of strategic reasons. The ANC rightly lambasted those leaders at the time and pointed out that history would judge those leaders harshly for their cowardice and immorality. History, similarly will judge the South African government – who used to support the rights of gay men and lesbians – harshly for trowing a vulnerable and marginalized group to the wolves. Whether it was done because of bigotry or because of pragmatic considerations, it remains shocking and unacceptable.
I wonder, when Mr. Matjila said that the rapporteur’s inclusion of sexual orientation “demeans the legitimate plight of the victims of racism”, would that mean that the plight of the victims of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is an “illegitimate” pligt?
And what is an “illegitimate plight”?
Very strange way of putting it.
Pierre, everything you say here is essentially correct. It does seem, however, that you are being somewhat selective in complaining about discrimination against homosexuals; they are seemingly well protected here legislatively whereas white males are actively discriminated against (S9(3) – “on one or more grounds”, ie white and male), in violation of the constitution – with nary a peep from you. This seems to be a convenient cop-out with bleaters like yourself pretending that this discrimination either does not exist, or is somehow justified. It is simply racist and sexist and indefensible no matter how anyone tries to spin it. Your black woman example above ostensibly being discriminated against therefore rings a bit hollow in the absence of your condemning ALL forms of discrimination based on arbitrary criteria such as race, sex, or orientation.
As an aside, being “gay or lesbian” doesn’t necessarily make you a “small or vulnerable minority”. I can’t help thinking of the likes of J Edgar Hoover and Aileen Wuornos as vicious and unrelenting homosexuals – the antithesis of what you proclaim. Also, your cheap shot at Sarah Palin is not appreciated. I will have you know that many of us regard her as “hot” and I’m sure she is a pinup on many smutty little schoolboys’ bedroom walls.
And this is why here in SA, those of us who recognize the world in reality holds all the various peoples, cultures, orientations, beliefs… as one, but unfortunately as a result of people’s bigoted views, we who care, weep.
“…rather than taking the principled position, and setting an example on human rights which other African states could look to.” (Helen)
Now, wouldn’t that be the next SA miracle.
Graham, yours is, of course, a familiar complaint. Let me humor you and make two points to explain while I am not going to whine about the terrible plight of white heterosexual men and why I think you are wrong – both on conceptual and on moral/ethical grounds.
First, statistics suggest that your claim about the terrible plight of white men is a bit far fetched. Research show that white graduates are about three times as likely as black graduates to land a job within three months of graduating. A report by the Commission for employment equity in 2008 further showed that white men represented 61% of top management, enjoyed 48% of all recruitment and made up 45% of all employees promoted to this level. At the top management level black men represented 10%, enjoyed 13% of all recruitment and made up 13% of all employees promoted to this level. In this category, Indian men represented 5% and coloured men 4%, while white women represented 12%, black women just less than 4%, and Indian and coloured women each just more than 1%. For the first time the study also looked at how top management in the government sector compared with the private sector. In government 61% were black, 12% coloured, 5% Indian, 21% white and under 1% foreigners. In the private sector white people had the highest representation with 74%, followed by black people with 13%, Indians with just less than 6%, coloureds with 5% and foreigners accounting for about 3%. Given the skewed skills-set and the fact that only 60% of graduates are black, this might suggest that white men are less likely to be employed in government but are still far more likely to be employed in the private sector.
Second, your view of discrimination is not shared by (i) the Constitutional Court; (ii) the UN Committee on Human Rights who overlook the enforcement of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; (iii) the US Supreme Court before it was packed by far-right wing judges by Republican Presidents; and (iv) almost every legal academic outside the USA who study equality and non-discrimination. It all depends on what you think the aim of a nondiscrimination provision should be. If you believe it should aim to freeze the status quo then your approach (which claims to be based on the notion that everyone should always be treated equally regardless of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability etc) is the right one. Of course this approach is really intellectually bankrupt and impossible as people are often treated differently for many reasons – including their personal characteristics and attributes – and rightly so. Equal treatment is not something that one can plausibly defend. If on the other hand, one believes that equality should try to do something different – maybe linked to striving for the creation of a society where we strive towards equal opportunities for all, or one in which the inherent human dignity of everyone is respected or where one strives for the creation of a society where everyone can exploit their full capabilities as human beings – then one can never insist on equal treatment for all people at all times (as you seem to want). I am firmly in the second camp, both because it is conceptually more coherent and plausible and because it is ethically far more defensible. You are of course welcome to endorse a different kind of “ethics”, which I would see as a non-ethics as it completely disregards the actual lived reality of individuals and reward people for being born privileged and rich and punishes people for being born poor. (Is’nt there something in the Bible that suggests the latter option is not really a good idea?)
Horaah ! Hoorah !
Thank You
Apologies for going back to Prof’s post yesterday “On one magic moment of the World Cup”. I just want to say that I was truly moved by Pierre’s account of that human encounter and have myself experienced similar situations here in Grahamstown. It is the fact that those encounters are possible in South Africa and increaslingly so, that gives me most hope. So, I want to echo with Prof: “Hey, it’s not much, but its enough for me.”
You refer in passing to “religious hate-mongers and fanatics – the Sarah Palins of the USA”. Don’t these epithets rather apply to those who, in the name of religion, blow up schools that educate girls (in Afghanistan); order women flogged for associating with men (in Saudi Arabia); mutilate young women’s genitals; murder female family members who wish to adopt the culture of their adopted countries (US, Canada, UK, Netherlands, etc.); or teach children to embrace suicide if enough Jews are killed at the same time (Palestine). Is Alaska more exciting that we thought? Or is it just that you feel safe writing this because Palin supporters are unlikely to threaten you with death?
How is “Equal treatment is not something that one can plausibly defend” consistent with “a society where we strive towards equal opportunities for all, or one in which the inherent human dignity of everyone is respected or where one strives for the creation of a society where everyone can exploit their full capabilities as human beings”? How is “then one can never insist on equal treatment for all people at all times” with any kind of equal protections clause, or a Rechstaat?
Sorry! Typo. ‘t’ in ‘Rechtstaat’.
Pierre, I’ll try not to labour the issue too much as you have spent two long and convoluted paragraphs trying to defend the indefensible and spin your ludicrous argument – which is to be expected. Your number-crunching exercise would possibly have some validity if we were all identical in terms of intellect, ability and motivation, which is clearly not the case. So you therefore endorse an active discrimination against a relatively small group, simply because they have shown themselves to be disproportionately more successful than others. And you infer that this success is because they were born rich, advantaged, or whatever. You mean like Louis Luyt, who was born an impoverished and illegitimate child who took on his stepfather’s name and could never belong to the higher echelons of the Afrikaner elite or get a leg up via Broederbond connections like Anton Rupert for example. Louis did it the hard way without any special deal. You now endorse an active discrimination against people like him simply because they are successful. He must be dragged back into the pack of mediocrity and under-performance so that the social engineering percentages look acceptable.
I am gratified that my views are not consonant with that of the constitutional court or the UN commission on human rights given their makeup and the fact that the former is over-represented with ANC supporters or apologists and the latter is packed with third-world anti-semites.
Your one sentence says it all and shows you up rather badly: “Equal treatment is not something that one can plausibly defend.” Here you have shown clearly for all to see your old Nat beliefs and ties. On this basis, the whole apartheid edifice can be justified and defended.
You want a special deal for groups like homosexuals or blacks and you use a thoroughly dishonest and convoluted argument to bolster your indefensible case.
Until everybody in this country is treated equally, we will never be truly liberated.
I must admit that I also found the part of Prof. de Vos’ statement that starts with “Equal treatment is not something that one can plausibly defend” a bit difficult to understand. But I think the point is that to create a truly just society, one has to be willing to treat people different based on their circumstances. Thus, a poor person might be able to get subsidised housing whereas a rich person will not be able to get an apartment that is subsidised. And a child who does not have parents who can help with home work might get access to free tutoring whereas certain other children will not have the same possibility.
The arguments for such differential (of, if you prefer, unequal) treatment would be that this helps to give persons equal opportunities.
This idea is certainly not knew. In the UN Convention to Eradicate Racial Discrimination from 1966, the oldest of the UN human rights treaties, it is stated in article 1.4, that
“Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.”
Graham proved that he is a raving lunatic period!!!
Graham, it is tempting to agree with Kenneth, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are just a bit slow. Hurling invective is not really a plausible strategy when one engages in a discussion, I find. Saying something is ludicrous does not make it so – even in our post-modernist world. Maybe it works for you because then you do not have to engage with relatively straight forward concepts that might challenge your preconceived ideas and prejudices. But being a patient person I will explain.
My statement “Equal treatment is not something that one can plausibly defend.” is rather uncontroversial. Examples: The law prohibits a blind person from driving a car despite the fact that one cannot discriminate on the basis of disability. Life insurance companies provide different rates depending on one’s age despite the ban on age discrimination. Our personal income tax system taxes rich people (who are still disproportionately white) more heavily than lower earners despite the ban on racial discrimination. The law allows women maternity leave despite the ban on sex and gender discrimination. The law prevents children from voting, despite the ban on age discrimination. Etc etc etc. Insisting on equal treatment for everyone regardless of their personal attributes or characteristics like race, sex, gender, age, disability, marital status, language etc is thus conceptually a non-starter. Could you perhaps agree on this point? If yes, then you MUST agree that one must find another way of conceptualizing equality and non-discrimination. A plausible argument could centre around what this should be. Insisting that non-discrimination requires equal treatment at all times, is, however, laughable and conceptually impossible in a modern or any state.
Second your Louis Luyt example is not a very good one. I might be wrong, but I thought he was white. He was not subjected to Bantu education which allocated about 600% more money for the education of a white child than a black child. He did not have to carry a pass book. Unlike every black South African he was not systematically discriminated against by the state and by private institutions, prevented from owning property or playing golf at the local country club, prevented from visiting Parliament and meeting members of Parliament (unless he was cleaning the toilets), systematically excluded from certain job opportunities etc etc etc etc. If Louis Luyt was black he might well have been a mine worker who had long since died of TB. It is sad that some people really do not want to acknowledge such obvious realities and deny facts that are not really in dispute (its a bit like denying the Holocaust or that the earth is round or that HIV causes Aids). Some would call it delusional and mad, but I suspect its merely self-interest and unacknowledged shame. I might be wrong though. Maybe it is delusional.
Pierre De Vos says:
June 25, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Pierre stop peddling lies and confusion. HIV does not cause Aids in the absence of an opportunistic disease or a continuum of opportunistic diseases that progressively harm the body and eventually lead to a potentially lethal syndrome that we call Aids. I suggest you start learning the ABCs of Aids on the Aidstruth website or from your friend, Zackie’s, website.
Pierre, you are writing disproportionately long comments trying vainly to discredit what is simply a logical rejection of something that smacks of social engineering and political expediency. Are you worried that in fact you are not able cogently to counter the views I state? You know your case is bereft of substance when you have to trawl up the old blind driver analogy. You also know that the moment you bring the ‘poor’ into your argument, it needs to be viewed with extreme suspicion. Invariably, the interests of the poor are the furthest thing from your mind. Your other examples are completely irrelevant to the debate and do nothing to strengthen your case. You know you are being intellectually dishonest; I know you are being intellectually dishonest; and you know that I know you are being intellectually dishonest. We are talking about an arbitrary discrimination against a small group based simply on their race and sex and, as I said before, there is no way one can rationally justify or defend this.
Saying something is ‘ludicrous’ may indeed not make it so; however it does sound somewhat more descriptive than saying one is ‘wrong’ – which is what you are wont to state when you haven’t got an adequate defence.
Louis Luyt, believe it or not, is white. The point was that he was from a crushingly poor background and and was able to rise above it without a special deal. Trying to posit a ‘cute’ counter-argument does you no favours.
How did you crack your job at an institute of supposedly higher learning?
Graham is more right than he is wrong.
If you define success by western standards i.e being rich than yes it is more likely that people from western origins with capatalistic needs will be more prone to success.
African people living like African people will always have less money than “European people” living like European people because the value systems differ immensly and different things are important.
Within the “European culture” the same principles will apply: the Europeans who regard being rich as more important than the other Europeans will inevitably live to satisfy this craving and be richer than the other europeans.
Important and influencial positions in the public and private sector and the desire therefore boil down to money.
These deductions can be made from emperical evidence.
“While a society of equals — whether baboons or jackdaws, lions or men — is a natural impossibility, a just society is a realizable goal. Since the animal, unlike the human being, is seldom tempted by the pursuit of the impossible, his societies are seldom denied the realizable” – Robert Audrey
Graham, could you please come with some examples of the horrible discrimination against white men?
And I do not know what yuor point is about J. Edgar Hoower and gays and lesbians not being a vulnerable minority – would you also use eg. Bobby Godsell as an example to show that white males are not a vulnerable minority (which you seem to believe white males are).
And what do you mean by someone being an “unrelenting homosexual”? Do you also have “unrelenting heterosexuals”?
I am also a bit disappointed with your last post – it is mainly 50 ways of saying that Prof. de Vos is wrong without one substantial argument.
yes graham,
you are right: apartheid was a benign system, had no victims and disadvantaged no-one; any attempt by the constitution to redress these so-called injustices of the past and their resultant social, legal and economic impacts are illogical and sinister
i’m packing my bags for orania !
(oh wait…there aren’t any cheap domestic cleaners there…ok, i’ll rather stay)
p.s. apologies to MDF for style appropriation
Graham, as you have stopped disputing my statement that: “Equal treatment is not something that one can plausibly defend” I take it you now agree with me and acknowledge that your initial rejection of it was wrong. Good. That’s a start. Perhaps without knowing it you have said something of conceptual interest when you wrote: “We are talking about an (sic) arbitrary discrimination”. What you do not say, is what in your view would make discrimination arbitrary? Is it like Justice White of the US Supreme Court who said about pornography that he cannot define it but he knows it when he sees it? How do we decide that some kinds of different treatment are arbitrary and others are not? The answer is not as obvious as you seem to assume. As Peter Weston wrote back in 1982 in the Harvard Law Review, equality as a legal concept of itself is an “empty idea”. One can only answer the question of what is arbitrary discrimination if you answer a preceding set of questions: What is the aim of equality? What is the underlying values promoted by it? Why is equality important? Who and what does it protect? I suspect you would say, that discrimination is always arbitrary when people of different races are treated differently by the state. But I am not sure you would want to live with the consequences of this view. Let’s take education as an example: your view would hold that where the state provides all children with education, it should treat all children exactly the same regardless of race. If they provide children at a predominantly white school with a library, sports fields, chemistry labs etc, it should do the same for children at a predominantly black school. But the state says it does not have the money to do so immediately. The only answer would then be to close down the libraries and chemistry labs and destroy the sports fields of the predominantly white schools, otherwise it would be treating white and black children differently and (as it would arbitrarily be giving a better education to the children at the predominantly white school) this would constitute arbitrary discriminatory – which you say you are not in favor of. That is why you will have to think a bit harder (I assume this is possible) about what you mean by “arbitrary”. The set of questions I provided might help to guide your thought (if any).
I can see the Prof’s point – got to address past inequalities; but Graham also has a point – either you discrimminate or you don’t? And if its OK to discrimminate then why not discrimminate against homosexuals for, example, having too many of the jobs in the entertainment industry to the prejudice of heterosexuals. Don’t knee-jerk, just think about that – someone’s doing too well so you bring ‘em down?
OK, so white people had a better time of it until 1994 as far as State sponsored support is concerned. Not sure anybody is going to dispute that.
I will leave out complicated things and stick to the PC line. OK, so we accept for the sake of a simpler argument that your average white had a better education than your average black pre-1994. Post-1994 education, for the sake of argument in equal measure to the above, was expanded to include previously excluded black people into the school systems which used to exclude them.
White people graduating before 1994 have an edge on their black counter-parts, but white people graduating after 1994 do not on a sliding scale.
If we allow for a carry-over period and start the schooling at Grade 1 in 1994 then, 16 years later, the first university graduates are emerging without any form of State-sponsored discrimmination between them.
If one population group continues to prosper despite the playing fields being conceptually level, then why discrimminate against them? Because their parents were on average wealthier? Because on average they lived in nicer houses?
And how long does this last? 1, 2, 3, 4 generations? As long as 1652 to 1994?
A key aspect of the “positive discrimmination” as some would have it is the absence of an end-game. As it presently stands the end-game is very, very ill-defined to the point where it factually does not exist. There is no measure nor time-line placed on this. In which case the discrimmination becomes permanent.
At that point of permanence (as it stands now), it cannot be ethically or morally or constitutionally sustained.
But certainly Matjila’s stance and utterings are exactly those of the RSA government. As a representative there is no ways in which what he said could be regarded as “his” viewpoint. Rather the other way round. His own viewpoint might be different – but what he said represented the RSA government stance on the subject.
Regarding what GRAHAM posted above:
It’s time that we all accept and acknowledge that we actually have a colour berserk and racially besotted Constitution – according to the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence re section 9.
Period.
Those who can’t see that are as blind as those who all those years could see nothing wrong with apartheid.
Apartheid and the injustices of the past are apparently the reasons why the majority of black South Africans are poor and uneducated.
This is nonsense. Apartheid is the reason why black South Africans were not given the opportunity to participate in the same way of living as the white people, but this way of living was not part of African culture or the African way of living before Europeans started to tread this continent. Only when the black South Africans started to measure their wealth and education by european standards did they start to consider themselves poor, uneducated and deprived.
Black South Africans werent educated or rich when the europeans got here. They were contempt with life in the African way.
The reasons for discriminating against white men is because they brought a system to africa and used the africans on their own land to build a nation for themselves, because the africans now have to strive to achieve goals and worry about things which they never before did.
Apartheid was savage, unjust and many other things, but it is not the reason why the Majority of black south africans are poor according to european standards.
Ricky, ever heard of a designated group? Guess what, white males are the only group not so “designated”. Sounds like “arbitrary” discrimination to me, Pierre. And Ricky, if you like we can call it horrible too. Justifying or defending discrimination on the basis of ones morphology or skin colour sounds fairly arbitrary to me. A bit like the old days Pierre, when you supported such an arbitrary system by voting Nat. As you still do with your specious defence now of such arbitrary action.
There are, I’m sure, ‘unrelenting heterosexuals’. The point which may have eluded you, Ricky, is that not all homosexuals are vulnerable and cuddly little entities which Pierre, it seems, would have you believe. Some are in fact quite tough and nasty and don’t need to be especially favoured for on the simple basis of their homosexuality.
Pierre, it’s not a case of silence meaning assent. Your “equal treatment is not something that one can plausibly defend” utterance is rejected outright and I am surprised that you want to labour this. If you had said “unequal treatment is not something that one can plausibly defend”, I would have concurred.
Roger, your argument sounds convincing. But you seem to forget that, just like the Europeans coming to America, the Europeans coming to Africa did not just leave the original inhabitants alone but rather did lots of things that disrupted what you would probably call the normal way of live for Africans. Now, I am not a big expert of South African history but I have read a bit about the slave trade in West Africa and it is clear that the slave trade played a big role in destroying the civilisations that existed there. Similar, I believe that the conquistadors played a big role in destroying the Inca and Atzec civilisations in Latin America.
It is impossible to know how e.g. the advanced West African cultures, like the Mali kingdom that was strong and powerful centuries ago, would have developed without Western interference. Therefore, your arguments seem a bit too simplistic.
Zoo Keeper, your view is also too simplistic. All sociological research will show you that it takes generations to make up for lack of education. The child of a person with no education will hardly ever get a masters degree but might get a short education. Then his child may get a medium education and so on. The reason, well, there are several. If you are not brought up in an educated family, a family that reads and discusses matters, you might not see the value, you will not be pushed to do well academically etc. And, very simple, there are nobody who can help you do your homework. You should also remember that there are not enough welltrained school teachers, meaning that the well qualified school teachers will prefer to work in the rich schools in the nice neighbourhoods, making it take even longer for the schools in the poor aread to get up to snuff. So, Zookeeper, it will take much more than 16 years….
And there is a difference between discrimination and treating different people differently. I have no problem with paying higher tax than a person with less income, even though we both have the same benefits from society. Or with a kid with no parents to help him getting free tutoring. etc.
Where it might be important to look at the various affirmative action programs now, 16 years later, is when it comes to the criteria for beneficial treatment. Since there now is a reasonably large group of affluent blacks, coloured and Indians and some poor white people, might it not be more fair to look at e.g. where you were brought up, your social status or?? rather than only looking at colour. I believe it was Barak Obama who at some point talked about that it was not fair that his daugthers might in some instances benefit from affirmative action programs in the US.
Graham, you do not answer my question. I asked for examples of white males being discriminated against – if you had some good examples, then maybe I would agree that they should also be a designated group. So, some concrete examples?
And when it comes to homosexuals, you are not making sense. Of course not all homosexuals are “vulnerable and cuddly” just as not all Christians being discriminated against in some muslim countries are “vulnerable and cuddly” – or all jews in 1930′s Germany were “vulnerable or cuddly!” or all blacks in apartheid South Africa. But this is totally besides the point. If e.g. black cannot live in certain areas, there are being discriminated against, cuddly or not. If black lesbians are subject to harassment, corrective rape etc, they are being discriminated against, cuddly or not. If jews cannot work in certain positions, etc. Using an example like you do is as stupid as peoples saying “no, it is not bad for your health to smoke because my uncle died at an age of 100 and he always smoked like a chimney”.
Graham, your arguments – and your style of presenting them – are not impressive. And I doubt you can blame bantu education (c;
Ricky, I’ve answered you question. Do you want past or current injustices? Why don’t you do your own research?
I don’t think it is too important to try and impress you. My arguments and style may hopefully impress someone else. You seem a bit sensitive to the homosexual issue. Why would that be, I wonder?
graham,
the guys from orania called: they want to know what time you’re arriving, apparently really looking forward to your company
(hey, btw, they assure me they will try their best not to have any gay men present at your welcoming party)
Graham, you have not provided any examples on horrible discrimination of white males – so I assume you do not have any.
But you do provide a wonderful example of your style: Rather than commenting on the issues I raise, namely the silliness of using one person to proof that a group is not discriminated, you come with snide insinuations.
Of course, we should be happy that the world is so diverse – and that we have a wide freedom of expression (as the recent decision of the SAHRC on Zapiro shows) – so that I can have an express my opinion and maybe someone agree (or not) and you can have yours. How dull if we all had the same opinion – or argued in the same manner.
Ricky
I agree with you that the Africans were tortured enslaved etc.
I agree with you that their way of living was disrupted and that the development of their societies (once again according to european standards) maby could have been set back by the infiltration of africa, but if you look at the tempo at which development took place, the Africans and Europeans might as well have been living in different worlds. Without exposure and the transfer of european ideas and technology to africa it is hard to believe that especially southern african countries would have developed to be as “sophisticated” as they currently are. Please dont look at the exceptions look at the rule.
I dare anyone to argue on solid grounds that South Africa without european interference would have been as developed as it is today.
Equality is a legal concept not a genetic one. White people dont shout discrimination because they are not genetically endowed to run long distances like black people. Sure there are great white long distance athletes, but the fact remains that they are great for white athletes, but not great compared to black long distance runners. Unfortunately the same applies to black people, sure there are smart black people, but they are smart for black people, not smart compared to smart white people.
If all were endowed with the same intellectual capacity and obsession with the future the history books would have been written alot different than they are today. It is and always has been a game of catch up for black Africans.
Roger, I do not think that black people genetically are less smart than white people – but I do think that your environment has a lot to do with how well you develop your inherent gifts.
If you took a couple of identical twins and put one with a poor uneducated family in an informal settlement and the other in an afluent familly in say Sandton with access to a good private school, I will almost bet that the second twin will be a smarter adult than the first twin.
Similarly, when you have generations of persons being subject to “bantu-education”, you cannot expect descendants of such persons, especially if they are still subject to bad schooling etc., to be as smart as persons who from generations has had access to good schooling etc. And, since every body agrees that the public school system in SA has not really managed to improve, it will take time.
No Ricky, I am not talking about a few hundred years, I am talking about hundreds of thousands of years.
Sure your hypothesis explains how two people can be develop diffently over the span of a life time and this hypothesis can possibly be extended to the 400 odd years that black south africans have been enslaved etc , but that is not what I am getting at..my question to you is why in the thousands of years preceding this did Europeans develop to such a sophisticated level and the Black South Africans didnt?
Please explain…
There is a curious double-standard at work here.
Let me see if I understand you all correctly:
Discrimination is despicable when it is A’s ox being gored but understandable when it is A’s ox doing the goring. (TMAM.) Racial preference is quite immoral when it is A who is receiving preferential treatment but completely acceptable when it is B receiving preferential treatment at A’s expense.
Rich people (a.k.a middle-class white SA) ought to look pleasant about paying more in tax – they have much, others have little and the goal, after all, is equality so how can they expect to pay an equal share of tax or receive an equal share of state outputs? (The justification for treating people unequally is equality which, to normal people, is known as an oxymoron.) [Historically, taxes were levied on black South Africans to drive them off the land. Like poll taxes, hut taxes. Here is a hint to understanding South Africa: A tax is not a tax is not a tax....Historically, taxes are levied on white people because they have plenty and it is their duty to pay tax to provide for those less fortunate in pursuit of the highly laudable objective, a better life for all. You shut up! Don't you dare mention in Gauteng the highest salary earning group are Indian! That is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand. Don't come here with your tendencies your white tendencies! Bustard! Bloody agent!]
This chain goes on unbroken, for many generations, during which it is OK (morally acceptable, kewl, i.o.w., with a murder of the haves by the have-nots thrown in here and there…) to despise white middle-class South Africans for paying more in tax and getting less in the services than the state provides to other people (but don’t say anything about it being because of their being white!).
At the end of it – when the Sisters of Mercy and their Agony Aunts are satisfied that everyone is – now, finally, in their considered opinion – EQUAL?
Do those who contributed a more-than-equal share to equality get a r.o.i.?
Brett, You seem to indicate that white people pay more in tax than Indian, coloured or blacks (when you say that “taxes are levied on white people” and then mention that Indians are the highest earners in Gauteng). But surely an Indian with a annual income of SAR 1,000,000 will pay the same in tax as a white, black or coloured wih an annual income of SAR 1,000,000 (if they have the same costs etc.)? Or are there some difference in the tax code for the different ethnic group that I am not aware of?
Surely if the difference in tax is only based on different income, meaning that higher paid persons pay a higher tax rate than lower paid persons, this would not be racial discrimination? Of course, you might still find it unfair – but it is used in most countries around the world.
You talk about people paying more in tax and getting less of the services. But the idea behind tax is not that a person paying SAR 10,000 in tax can expect to get services for SAR 10,000 back but that the SAR 10,000 are used on the needs of society as defined by the elected representatives – and the people paying little tax will normally have more need of public services than the people paying much tax.
Ricky, your assumption is incorrect. You’re misreading.
I am questioning basic assumptions. ‘Everyone’ knows whites pay the most tax? Really?
Seems to me when people’s basic assumptions are so misguided we need to look at the rest of their argument very carefully. Listen to that tone again when they talk ‘tax’.
This whole argument around ‘equality’ and ‘discrimination’ is ridiculous because what is really meant is victor’s law and revenge.
Ricky, anwer my question please
sorry, answer
Roger, I do not know how developed the civilisations were in South Africa at the time the European’s arrived. So, as I cannot even verify if your assumption, that the South African civilistations were backwards, is correct – and therefore not answer your question.
But I think it is difficult to assess who have the most advanced civilisation. Let’s take the Atzecs and the Inkas. In many ways, therer were very advanced – but they did not have guns so they were no match for the conquistadors. But it could be that they in other ways were more advanced?
And things tend to be cyclical. When the Greeks developed democracy, tragedie, made beautiful sculptures etc, people in Scandinavia could hardly put two stones together to make an ax. But a few thousand years later, the Scandinavians are arguably doing much better than the Greeks.
There is a tendency to judge the value of civilisations based on the winner’s perspective and it seems to me that that is also what you are doing.
But is Graham actually arguing that white males are a minorty in SA who are unfairly/unethically discriminated against? I am not interested in what the constitution says about the treatment of white males, but does he actually believe that the same minority that is responsible, to a large extent, for the blatant disproportionate distribution of resources, whose ripple effects continue to rob the majority of a decent livelyhood to this day, and have shown very little remorse for their part in it, if any, are adversly affected by attempts that’ve been put in place for reparatory justice?.
A word of advice to him would be to read and re-read the ‘quote of the week’ on the top right-hand corner of this same page and maybe take a leaf from Anthony Butler’s book…the man is very insightful and as an ex-student of his I know this first hand…
You’re talking garbage, Itumeleng.
The basic math has been the same since 1652.
Few resources and skills/Many people = Abject poverty.
Go read Michael Osborne. On the previous page.
Brett, Pierre, Itumeleng, Ricky, Roger, Etienne and James are correct.
Thank you.
Ag Itumeleng,
Use the “open opportunity society”. Use it to better your position.
Don’t sit back and wait for the State. It will never happen.
Don’t sit back and then blame white males that they “rob the majority of a decent livelihood”.
What drivel.
How do they do that?
By working to earn a living for them and their families? By not waiting for the State to provide? May they not get out and work to help themselves????
I note that no one has tried to (because they are obviously not able to) dispute my assertion that nondiscrimination is about arbitrary/unfair/unacceptable discrimination – not about any kind of discrimination. “Discrimination” is at the heart of law making. Without it there can be no laws as laws aim to make distinctions between people. It’s impossible to pass a law that does not “discriminate”. I provided several examples to illustrate my point. None of these examples have been disputed. This is because they cannot be disputed. To decide whether discrimination is arbitrary/unfair/unacceptable, one has to look at the purpose of the “discrimination” and ask whether the purpose is justified. Those opposing affirmative action either say that there has been no past discrimination against black South Africans or that correcting the injustices of that discrimination is not fair or legitimate. The former assertion is obviously so delusional that one need not be detained by it. The latter assertion is based on a belief that only retaining the status quo can be fair. I find the latter assertion deeply immoral as well as dangerous. Others do not because the status quo benefit them. This selfish and immoral view is understandable – we have a tendency to want to get the best for ourselves. In that the opponents of affirmative action is not much different from the tenderpreneurs and the crooks whose self interest overrides all other considerations. This is strangely comforting to me. It shows there are people of all races who are selfish and short sighted fools.
Jerry Matjila is my father. What you said about his character is 100% true. It was really strange reading this post. Feminists say the personal is political. That took on a whole new meaning for me!!!
Brett: “Sorry! Typo. ‘t’ in ‘Rechtstaat’.”
Yes, and an extra ‘s’ in ‘Rechtsstaat’. (Some of us are such nitpickers!)
Dworky, I’ve already warned you about this…No-one is interested in research showing Indians are per capita the highest-income group in Gauteng.
Sirjay, this is where you come in to remind Pierre of the physical attributes of the fat woman in the dressing-gown with the weight-fetish.
Please point out that he has not mentioned the equal-protections clause once.
Thanks to the White men for bringing civilization into Africa, we will forever be greatful.
Recently a friend of Van Zyl Slabbert objected to him being compared to Judge Goldstone(Allegedely hanged 25 BlackS DURING APARTHEID)and I was shocked.Louis Luyt is showcased as a symbol of success amongst Afrikaners.
Well I guess, I do not know enough about my fellow white countrymen.
This is probably off the mark Prof: However, a new babe today, was at the birth, watching the pain, istening and crying with all the trial of woman hood, then tears of joy when the cry of the newborn was heard, so naked and vulnerable on the scale before the breast.
Mama, papa and new child sleeping with us tonight along with two older brothers, nieces and nephews, I’m cooking as I love to do, insuring their nutrition and enjoyment.
In the midst of all the nonsense, so much nonsence, life goes on, thank god and thank the goddess Mother Earth. Ahh, a new child, so miraculous, wet, bloody, vulnerable.
And what future will ya all make possible….
Pierre writes:
“In that the opponents of affirmative action is not much different from the tenderpreneurs and the crooks”
Pierre, I trust you are referring only to white opponents of affirmative action.
In other words, you must surely give a break to blacks who have come out against AA, including Mamphele, M. Mbeki — and now even Neville Alexender. (Agents/Bastards!)
@ Gwebe
Goldstone “Allegedly hanged 25 Blacks during apartheid”
I don’t know the details of what Judge Goldstone did or did not do before 1994. What I do know is that he has now come strongly against the ILLEGAL ZIONIST ENTITY!
Here is the Goldstone/Van Zyl Slabbert matter
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=182407&sn=Detail
Another well-meaning whitey looking for a black Messiah who turns out to have more than a striking resemblance to Hitler, up close and personal.
godwin’s law
Pierre has convinced me: No-one here deserves to have passes introduction to law and legal theory or whatever they are calling it now at your minor university of choice….
Ricky
You’re way off. A clever child born into poor parents but going to a decent educational facility wll always succeed at something because they actually have the inherent ability to do well. The number of books in a child’s house is irrelevant to a child’s academic ability.
To state that it would take generation 1 to start having children capable of passing grade 8 and then that generation 2 would have to breed to get children capable of passing garde 10 is ludicrous.
It is simplistic beyond belief. A clever child will make it, there are plenty of examples of children succeeding despite the most destitute of beginnings.
But the basic problem remains: AA/BEE etc can only be temporary measures to be charaterised as passing constitutional muster. That the State has failed to ensure that basic education is excellent in poor communities should not be held against the previously advantaged.
Discrimmination based on race has to come to an end somehow and sometime. And that end has to be tangible at the outset of the imposition of the racially discriminatory law. At some point peopple have to stand on their own two feet.
Steve Biko said it best…
And while you all are discussing this most valuable topic that adds so much value to the lives of poor people, in the Eastern Cape at least one boy is dying every day in the name of tradition and no-one seems to notice or give a damn. This is such a tragedy, but the even greater tragedy is the boys that are left with amputated genitals (and they are even greater in number that the death toll). How are these boys to become the responsible young men they are suppose the be after initiations without their manhood? Every day I hear about the increased death toll at initiation schools I want to cry about human nature’s inability to recognize that something is not right just because it is a tradition.
Deloris could it be that this is a case of “cultural discrimination” – when one’s culture holds one back? How do you propose we deal with this?
@Zoo keeper, Ricky and Sirjay – I enjoy your contributions!
A point that seems to be being missed is that our constitiution, and various government policies – AA, BBBEE etc aim to recognise the difference between FAIR (undesirable but neccessary to redress past wrongs) discrimination and unfair discrimination – ie justifyable discrimination versus unjustifyable discrimination.
Regarding the timeline (policies such as AA and BBBEE are not intended to be permanent, according to government), that is a tough one, and it is probably a case of a few generations at least will be needed until a serious dent is made.
I found development Economics to be a fascinating course of study, and there is much evidence to that allows us to suggest reasons why some countries and their citizens fare better than others.
Comparisons between Haiti and the Dominican republic, that occupy the same island, offer similar kinds of evidence as do studies of human identical twins that are separated at birth and are brought up in different cultures (ie the nurture versus nature argument).
Zoo keeper, you are unfortunately wrong about the clever child born to poor parents being likely to succeed / do well. lack of resources – particularly financial – is the major impediment to getting a good education, which in turn is one of the keys to success in life.
The fact is that right now the majority of black kids will attend a “black” township or farm school, where they will receive a very poor education (and pay very low or zero fees)
The majority of white kids will attend a formerly “white” / model C school, where they will receive a reasonable to good education (and pay relatively large fees).
And so the cycle rerpeats itself.
Peter
It still begs the question: when does it end?
Do we have Jimmy Manyi and his fellow National Socialists (amazing how this philosophy hasn’t died out despite its history) running around doing head-counts and pencil tests to ensure that each population group is now equally represented in each sphere of the socio-economic universe before we have it end?
Do we consign ourselves to a permanent class system whereby non-designated persons, i.e. white males (for now), are second-class citizens with fewer opportunites and rights for our lifetimes? Considering the argument over “generational change”, this is end-game is it not? No change in our lifetimes…
@Brett, so “basic maths” is the explanation to this problem of how to derive “abject poverty”? the masterminds behind SA’s problem of abject poverty must’ve been very calculating individuals then…let me try and use the same theory which’ve you’ve suggested to try derive another one of SA’s endemic problems: relatively exuberant lifestyles for SA’s minority
(many resources+skill)/few people = wealth for minority…
would this equation also fall under the basic maths that has been the same since 1652?
@ Spoiler: keep the tradition, don’t keep it, that is not for me to say, but some how regulate the matter to prevent our children from dying. If a child dies in an initiations school or due to the initiation process charge the owner of the school with manslaugter (not murder as surely there will never be the intent to kill) and make sure that the legal process is followed through to prevent him from doing the same thing again. Apparently one man has many times in the past been arrested for running illegal Initiation schools and causing the death of a number of boys but there he is again this year running the same illegal school. This should not be allowed. A commentator on another website has compared this to deaths in the mining industry. One miner dies on the job and a whole mining operation gets closed down until the investigation has been completed. How many boys must die before something concrete is done.
Deloris
Subject the initiation rite to full medical and safety regulations. Keep the practice but make sure it safe and only practiced by accredited medical personnel.
Anybody who causes death or injury should be prosecuted and jailed for culpable homicide. Only when these reckless schools are closed down by comprehensive policework and prosecution will any progress be made in ensuring the rite is safe and boys don’t come out half-men or dead.
No need to sacrifice the tradition, just use modern medicine.
@ Zookeeper,
You say that “A clever child born into poor parents but going to a decent educational facility wll always succeed at something because they actually have the inherent ability to do well … A clever child will make it, there are plenty of examples of children succeeding despite the most destitute of beginnings.”
Of course, there are lots of examples, just as there are examples of people who smoke becoming hundred. But that does not mean that people who smoke will not normally be more ill and live shorter.
And the fact that some people manage to buck the trend and pull themselves up despite all odds not not mean that for more average kid it will make a huge difference whether they 1) have a good school, 2) have supportive parents (of course, poor and uneducated parents can be as supportive as rich educated parents but will often have less ability to help with homework, might have less time if they have more than one job or spend 2-3 hours each way to and from work), 3) have e.g. a place to study in piece (easier in a big house than in a one room shed shared with extended family), 4) have good examples of how you succeed in life with education, 5) are pushed to succeed (how many girls were not 40 years ago told by their parents that they did not need as good an education as boys), – and the list continue.
You are maybe right about the exceptionally skilled and driven child – but for the large majority just below, on and just above average, I think I am right.
I notice that I used the word “smart” in one of my former posting – I meant more bookishly skilled.
Peter, thanks for your posting.
invFor one thing, The number of books in a child’s house is irrelevant to a child’s academic ability.
Yes. (many resources+skill)/few people = wealth for minority… Yes. A lifestyle comparable to what we would have had, had the accident of birth dropped us in the US or Margaret Thatcher’s UK or Australia. That !@#$$%$ stork!
A lifestyle that is not nearly as exuberant as many members of the overnight millionaires connected to the ANC….
No-one masterminded the abject poverty the vast majority of South Africans find themselves in, Itumeleng! It simply always existed. Conspiracy theories are a facile explanantion for complex phenomena. Not helpful. The question is what role truth plays in your life.
Are white South Africans to blame for black South Africa’s failure to modernize? I think not. Where we expected to do that?
Have the imbalances between the haves and have nots changed since 1652? Obviously, or why do citizens of neighbouring states risk death to come here?
ARe black living standards higher now than say, 1996? 1976? 1966? 1956?
Have the imbalances between the haves and have nots changed enough since 1652? From my perspective: “No!” (See, not being post-Christian I can say the failure to give everyone in the country a hand up was simply completely unChristian. You post-Christians are quagmired in pseudomoralistic illogical condemnations that all ultimately revolve around Christian values of charity.)
Would a person trying to live a godly life try and address the gap between the haves and havenots that was not adequately addressed before – in a spectacular failure of Christian charity? Yes, of course, by rendering unto Caesar and doing charity where possible!
Who can reasonably expect more than paying 60cents of every rand that one earns to ensure a better life for all? In tax? Does that not border on slavery already?
Now, Itumeleng: Before you start sloganeering – ‘Mayibuye Afrika’ or calling for instant nationalisation of all property – do the homework. Read old blogs. I’m going to ask you what the per-capita payout is going to be, who is going to finance the liquidation of assets to cash and who is going to ensure the grannies of Emdeni get their pensions and their granddaughters their child-grants the third month after nationalisation.
This is not Zimbabwe: I am not Bennett.
Ricky
How ca you assume wealth means more time? Only very, very few get that right – in general the beter the house and car the longer the work hours.
Anway, the foundation of this type of discrimmination is based on the premise that skin colour equals wealth. That, in a nutshell, whites are handed wealth on a platter and don’t have to work for it. This type of mythology is widespread and probably what really irks most whites who are accused of not working to earn their keep and living off “stolen” riches.
The question still comes down to time – for how long can an assumption that skin colour determines your wealth really exist? When will people just become poor and not poor and not white-and-therefore-rich and black-and-therefore-poor?
When will race cease to become a determining factor in discrimminatory laws?
In 1994 it was clear urgent things needed to be done, but in 2010 the relationship between skin colour and affluence is fading and certainly becoming less relevant.
The key question is: When does it end? Or are whites destined to be discrimminated against for their entire lifetimes, even those being born today? Are blacks therefore considered too intellectually inferior to whites that they have to “evolve” to equal white capabilities over a number of generations (think about that statement – its what your generational change essentially says)?
When do we stand on our own and move on to be judged by our character to paraphrase Martin Luther King?
@Ricky
RE: A Child’s probability of receiveing a good education in SA (the norm, not the exception or outlier)
Some of the research that I have seen, in addition to supporting the points that you have made, suggests that EXPECTATIONS play a significant role in educational achievement – ie if a child grows up with the understanding that he or she will attend University when they leave school, followed by post graduate studies, and the “culture” of the family is one which encourages, recognises and rewards academic achievement, then he or she is far more likely to become well educated than a child brought up with lower or no academic expectations.
This “expectation” and “culture” phenomenon goes at least some way to explaining why Japanese children in particular and Asian kids in general often do well academically (nothing to do with racial or genetic, superiority, Roger!)
When doing sensitivity analyses and running regression models where the dependent variable is achieving a good education, and various independent varibables are tested (ie what is the relationship between parents education level, parents income, type of housing, geographic location etc) the results are quite sobering, especially when they are converted to probability distributions – basically, if you are a child born into poverty and conceieved from ill educated parents, the probability of you getting a good education is very low.The corrollary applies to the offspring of rich well educated parents (ie they have a relatively high probability of becoming well educated).
A sobering thought that I have had is that if IQ is normally distributed amongst the population, and ignoring the effects of parental and infant nutrition on brain development, then amongst say the 500,000 informal shack dwellers, there must be many tens of thousands with extremely high IQ;s – over 140.
Many (most? nearly all?) will not receive or have received a decent education and will not achieve anything like thier full potential in life.
What a waste!
Peter, I could not agree more with your post, thanks.
Zookeeper, I believe that I already wrote in a previous post that at some point it becomes problematic (only) to look at skin colour when talking about affirmative action programs. It should maybe be based on school district, address (whether you live in a shanty town or in e.g. Sandton), wealth etc.
This is a problem not just for SA but also for e.g. the US where many blacks are poor and living in horrible areas with terrible schools – but where there are also many successfull African Americans.
RE: It might be that Mr Matjila is a lovely and caring person with love in his heart and that he was merely saying such reactionary and ignorant things because of instructions from Pretoria.
You may wish to ask Mr Matjila if he is or has been a serial rapist and sexual assaulter of girls–at least one, and speak with the women he may have raped and otherwise sexually abused. And ask him if a serial rapist ought to occupy a position such as the one he now holds.
I would argue that a man who has done such things has no business or place being involved, in significant position, in the support, or not, of human rights. But I leave it to the author or another reader who lives in South Africa to ask all of this to Mr Matjila directly, and publicly, with the camera on his face, with a direct and close view of his eyes.
It is interesting that some are very eager to relieve whites of apartheid bargage and simultaneously ignore the continued effects of apartheid atrocities on blacks. Very little has changed other than few darkies moving to the surburbs and public jobs whilst white are continuing to benefit just kike before if not more.
Ricky
When does it become problematic to stop looking at race? When – that must be tangibly apparent from the outset of the policy – not some indeterminate point in the future. Fluffy answers will not save the policy from being constitutionally flawed at some point in the near future.
This is the fundmental question everyone who is a proponent of the system of racial profiling and discrimination dodges: When?
You cannot answer that can you? “At some point in the future” doesn’t cut the mustard.
Yes, whites are on average better off than blacks, what else do you expect after Apartheid? And yes, with their better education whites are going to continue to benefit – what else do you expect to happen?
Gwebecimele’s post is revealing in that it expresses just that kind of grinding teeth irritation with whites not failing and not being driven into poverty en mass. What are the whites to do? They gave up power – yes, gave up that’s why we did not have a civil war. No other group has done that without a fatally destructive fight – give them credit for that.
Whites have generally been OK with AA and BEE until it started becoming an ANC get-rich-quick scheme with nothing to do with the lot of the average balck person. Whites, as far as I’ve seen, have apologised in their way – through thousands of blogs like this one, letters to newspapers and even FW said sorry. Anthony Butler doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he says whites have no remorse.
But whites aren’t going to sit idly by and let life go one without them – no-one is regardless of race.
Its time blacks stopped relying on AA and BEE to get them ahead because it all it actually does is create a class of dependants. Malaysia is grappling with exactly that because they held on for too long and now people are reliant on it.
for a local example, just look at the chaos in Afrikaner society when the crutch of Apartheid was removed. But also look at the freedom it gave the previously dependant to get on with their lives and take control of their destinies?
Racially discriminatory laws can only be temporary and for emergencies only. That the emergency is continuing is more a result of leadership failure than the previous actions of a population group. Using Apartheid as an excuse for failure is now over, 16 years is more than enough to have put into place mechanisms to let the general populace get on with it.
It is interesting that a common thread here seems to be that if blacks had governed for 350 years – instead of a series of white colonial governments and ultimately, the National Party – everything would today be much better for everybody.
WHat rational basis is there for that belief? Does it not fly in the face of all the facts?
@Zoo Keeper
You make some good points – that ideally our welfare system and societal improvement initiatives should be based on objective, fair and measurable criteria, not race, political affiliation or any other arbitrary criteria.
Such appropriate criteria might be income level , asset level, education level, physical ability or disability etc.
The argument being that the children of Patrice Motsepe and Jacob Moraoga have no need of AA BBBEE etc in order to prosper, and should probably not qualify for special assistance, whereas the children of Jan Arm that live in a white squatter camp outside Krugerdorp probably should qualify.
Your analogy with Malaysia is a good one, even though I may not entirely agree with your analysis.
Their situation both economically and politically is closer to SA than you might imagine.
Ethnic Chinese are in the minority in Malaysia, and the government is dominated by Ethnic Malays.
For a number of years, the Malaysians have had various forms of AA in place in order to address the real imbalances in income, wealth, education etc between Chinese and Malays.
Basically, the ethnic Chinese dominate commerce, and are in general financially better off and better educated.
Over the years, minor racial flare-ups have occurred, with Chinese businesses in poor areas being torched, Chinese traders being run out of town etc, and the national socialsts and bigots on all sides making the kinds of statements that may sound a bit faimiliar to us here in SA – “The Malays are all lazy bums that just want to live on government and taxpayers handouts and don’t want to do a hard days work” juxtaposed against “The Chinese are a bunch of crafty thieves that rip the poor off with high prices, only look after their own and discriminate / look down on the majority Malays” Sound a bit familiar?
The philosophy of equal aqccess to government welfare is enshined in our constitution, and is already practiced in the case of social grants etc.
What is missing in SA is initiatives like a proper educational grant system right up to University level (our present education system effectively excludes the very poor from getting a decent education) to give access to ALL citizens.
(Please don’t tell me it is not affordable – it is – I am an economist and can cruch numbers quite well – just sell a few submarines and Beitling watches………)
Our Black economic empowerment also does indeed need to become genuinely broad based, and private enterprise will never deliver that on its own.
@Brett
Given the fact that it is impossible for anyone to say on any factual scientific basis what may have happened if blacks had governed in SA for the last 350 years – it is all specualtion – what is the point of such conjecture?
That is exactly my point.
It is what it is.
We can fight these endless wars of attrition over what happened 300 years ago or deal, in the here and now. We can speculate over how well off blacks would have been, keep up the racial ‘othering’, throw tantrums demanding nationalisation and redistrubution of land NOW. Extrapolate 16 years of shambolic kleptocrat rule to 2050 or 1850.
Or, we can thank the Lord we have what we have and start doing the best we can with what we were given.
Peter L
It is a policy based squarely on national socialism. One part of the population group does well and so it must be legislated back “down” to the majority level. I use “down” in a financial sense basically.
Why should it be done at all? Why not just tell the majority: “they’re doing better because they’re studying harder and working harder”?
Its a slippery slope to start cultivating the entitlement culture and depedency culture. We’ve just come out of Apartheid which was exactly the same although directed at white Afrikaners. Germany did exactly the same although it was directed at the Jews.
It wasn’t right in either of those instances, why should it be right now?
Peter L says:
July 1, 2010 at 9:57 am
“(Please don’t tell me it is not affordable – it is – I am an economist and can cruch numbers quite well – just sell a few submarines and Beitling watches………)”
Michael Osborne may be surprised to hear that
We don’t even need to sell those thingies – just manage effectively what we already have and most importantly, ensure that people to do what they get paid to do.
Brett, you speak of an “epidemic” of gun crime in the UK.
So far as I know, there have been less than 100 gun-homicide deaths in the UK per annum in recent years. If this is an “epidemic,” I think the U.S. , a country were guns are much more freely available than in the UK — would welcome the infection.
@ Maggs
We just need to “manage effectively what we already have and most importantly, ensure that people to do what they get paid to do.”
Maggs, even if we cut out all the waste and corruption, the depth and extent of the poverty entails that most people would remain poor. Sustained economic growth, at above the population growth rate, is the only way of uplifting the poor. (The notion that the solution to deficits is to trim “wastage,” rather than raise taxes, is a common trope among Republicans in the U.S.)
@ Michael,
I agree entirely that poverty will not be entirely eradicated and it’s exacerbated by the generations of systemic and structurally entrenched poverty creation interventions of the iniquitous regimes of the bygone eras.
And also that the impact and quantum of wastage and mismanagement may well be wildly exaggerated.
But, in my view, we are not doing as well as we could do, because the will and determination is not nearly where it ought to be – but I am hopeful that with each new generation we will improve, exponentially at that.
We have just proved that we can do better, a whole lot better. The entire world is in awe of what a committed South Africa can achieve and deservedly so.
Uhuh, Michael! Not I. Commentators in the UK describe it that way. A spiking homicide rate off a very low statistical base, to be sure. If only our epidemic would mutate with their virus.
(That is, too; if one is comfortable using ‘commentators’ as a sufficiently descriptive expletive for the UK media…)
Poverty is the natural human condition if one looks at most of the world. The only exceptions being the US, a few European countries and the Asian tigers that tried to emulate them.
Perhaps the problem is, once again, that no-one is conceptualising clearly?
What is the objective? We are never going to be able to transform SA into the Cosby household. Just lifting people out of sheer despair would be a start. That is behind a lot of violence and alcohol abuse.
Maggs, it tells us a lot about the ruling elite when they can adopt a ‘let them eat cake’ attitude amidst such squalor. Their F.U. values. Not: ‘They could do a lot better’.
All kinds of moral gymnastics to justify expensive cars. Brazen defences of incompetence and mismanagement.
Before anything else, we need to cultivate a sense of shame.
Maybe you’re right Brett?
Start with placing infrastructure into place for the poor to step on to make a life happen. A spaza shop owner isn’t going to be a diamond, but perhaps the economic class of the spaza shop owner should be the aim at best?
Good point, needs developing.
Our current ruling elite (very appropriate description) are as bad as the last lot.
Among the most cretinous of the ANC’s various milestones in mismanagement was the virtual destruction of the SBDC and the IDC. (Dont they specialise now in bridging finance complementing LandBank loans to the kleptocrats?)
My favourite fish&chipper (OK, chips&russian) in Kagiso was a father/2-daughters-home -from-school affair.
Under the Emperor, everyone aspired to becoming CEO of a BEE mining house or cell-phone operator.
We should really have paid more attention to the original thread.
The more one thinks about it the more ominous the Mugabe-style ‘othering’ of homosexuals becomes.
First Qwelane, now Matjila. Are they pandering to the boss?
similar take from eusebius mckaiser
the comments section is quite interesting
http://za.mg.co.za/article/2010-07-11-does-racism-trump-homophobia
[...] Our government representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Jerry Matjila, last year refused to support efforts at the UN to protect gay men and lesbians against discrimination, saying that the rapporteur’s [...]