|
|
Пишет Journal de Chaource (![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/syndicated.gif){kind=small} lj_chaource)@ 2018-07-07 19:25:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
What is real racism: Crisis in South Africa
I haven't heard much about South Africa until just recently something about "white genocide" caught my attention.
http://www.newsweek.com/white-farmer-kil
The white nationalist lobbying group AfriForum says that when lawmakers passed a motion last month which could see land being seized from farmers without compensation, it sent a message that landowners could be attacked with impunity.
It said there have been 109 recorded attacks so far in 2018 and 15 farm murders, meaning that this year, one white farmer has been killed every five days.
Gabriel Stols, 35, told the Independent how his younger brother Kyle, 21, was shot dead by four people on a game reserve near Bloemfontein.
“What is happening to us is torture, it is slaughter, it is brutal, it is revenge. The world doesn’t know what is happening in South Africa,” he said.
The farms in question are privately owned by whites.
The opinion is advanced by some black activists that whites need to be forcibly stripped of their property because of past white oppression of blacks:
https://youtu.be/a_bDc7FfItk?t=3176
Government explicitly threatens "whites" if they want to protest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_bDc7Ff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMOmQJCt
Part of a documentary about attacks on white farmers in South Africa.
Frequent brutal attacks has made their life almost unbearable, and they start think about leaving South Africa to go to Australia, New Zealand, or elsewhere. They have now a special word in Afrikaans, "plaasmoorde", meaning "farm murders".
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2018/03/1
Australian minister for immigration and border protection, Peter Dutton, said recently that his department was considering fast-tracking visas for white South African farmers looking to emigrate to Australia. He said white farmers deserve "special attention" owing to the "horrific circumstances" they face in South Africa – because of government's bid to expropriate land without compensation and the increasing number of farm attacks and murders.
Wikipedia on the plaasmoorde: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Afri
Mainstream media downplays the importance of attacks on whites in comparison with other problems in South Africa. One of these problems is the political crisis.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/f
South Africa has been pitched into an unprecedented political crisis after the ruling ANC party admitted that President Jacob Zuma had defied its orders to resign, and that it had little idea of when the 75-year-old head of state would respond to its demand to leave office.
Ace Magashule, the ANC’s secretary general, confirmed on Tuesday that the party had decided to “recall” Zuma from his “deployment as president” but said that no deadline had been given and there had been no discussion of bringing a motion of no-confidence to oust him.
After 20 years, the all-black South African government is still unable to improve the life of its black citizens. Who is to blame? The whites, because they were the oppressors up until 20 years ago. As the activist of South Africa's "Black Land First" movement says in the video, "we have waited peacefully long enough, and unfortunately, - unfortunately!, - we need to take back what is ours, through confrontation and war."
This logic is certainly racist, but the term "racist" is nowadays too vague and politically loaded. For instance, many people claim that non-whites "cannot be" racist or that their racism is justified because it is "reverse racism". So nowadays we can't simply call a policy "racist" to dismiss it; we need to find some fault with the policy.
So let us ask - is the South Africa's government correct about expropriating land from whites to compensate for past oppression? Let us apply the same logic to different historical circumstances.
The Jews were disproportionately represented among Communist activists and leaders in the Russian revolution of 1917. The Communist oppression brought ruin and unspeakable suffering to the country. "We have waited long enough. If we strip the Jews of power and give the power back to Russians, the country will flourish again."
The Jews were disproportionately represented among rich capitalists and bankers, who brought ruin to the German people. "We have waited long enough. If we strip the Jews of their financial and political influence and instead put the power back into German hands, the country will flourish again."
The white Boers in the South Africa were oppressing the various African tribes who lived there, and seized their land. "We have waited long enough. If we strip the whites of their land and political power, and instead put the land and the power back into black African hands, the country will flourish again."
The white Americans were oppressing African slaves in the USA. Today, 150 years after abolishing slavery, African Americans are still much poorer and less well developed than the white US-Americans. "We have waited long enough. If we take the money and the power away from whites and put it into black hands, the black community will flourish."
Looking at these examples, I see that there are two things wrong with this logic.
1. The sanction is applied to all members of a given "oppressor" race, not just to people who were actually doing the oppression. Is it justified?
The main argument in favor of this: All members of their race benefitted from oppression because the stolen wealth and power was distributed among all of them, since they naturally help each other, being members of the same race. This is so even if the oppression happened many years ago or if the oppression was performed by a tiny minority of that race. Therefore, all of them are now liable to sanction and retribution.
The main argument against this: It is unjust to impose a penalty on so many people who had nothing to do with the oppression, just because they share a certain race. Some of these people are poor and suffering, despite the supposed benefits of having oppressed another race. So, the "sharing" of power and wealth (stolen from the oppressed race) is certainly not uniform among the oppressors. It is unjust to punish people who did not perform any acts of oppression and who have had no share in its supposed benefits.
I find both arguments somewhat weak, but it's a trade-off dispute about what is more important - serving justice to people who were previously oppressed and are now poor, or to people who are also now poor but were not previously oppressed, and did not perform any acts of oppression. Phrased like that, the question becomes "victimhood olympics" that can have no productive solution.
2. It is assumed that things will flourish again once the power is taken away from the offending group and into the hands of the previously oppressed.
The main argument in favor of this: No people can flourish if the power and the wealth are taken away from them by people of another race. Oppression must stop, and what was taken away must be returned.
The main argument against this: There is no empirical evidence that the flourishing will ensue automatically after transfer of power, and even if the oppressors are physically gone. On the other hand, there is ample empirical evidence that countries that become independent of their oppressors fail to develop well and plunge into abject misery, corruption, civil war, and chaos. There is plenty of historical precedent that getting rid of an ethnic group does more damage than good. Countries such as 15-th century Spain that expelled the Jews - have become poorer as a result. Jews are not the only ethnic minority that got booted out of various countries due to their "unfairly obtained" wealth. It is always the case that some ethnic groups are more successful than others, and they are then hated and persecuted. In Europe, this ethnic group was the Jews; elsewhere, it was the Gujarati in Uganda, the Igbo in Nigeria, or the Chinese minority in Malaysia that was (and remains) conspicuously successful in spite of official racial discrimination. They are successful because of their specific culture and skills that the natives lack. Once they are gone, these skills are gone too.
To me, this is the strongest argument against the policy now being pursued in South Africa. The ruling black majority could expropriate land from white farmers; they could expel or even kill all white farmers; but none of this will achieve any tangible improvements in terms of wealth or order in their country. Quite on the contrary; looking at their relative economic success, the white farmers obviously carry skills and culture that the natives lack, so the departure of whites will mean an even steeper decline for South Africa.
I haven't heard much about South Africa until just recently something about "white genocide" caught my attention.
http://www.newsweek.com/white-farmer-kil
The white nationalist lobbying group AfriForum says that when lawmakers passed a motion last month which could see land being seized from farmers without compensation, it sent a message that landowners could be attacked with impunity.
It said there have been 109 recorded attacks so far in 2018 and 15 farm murders, meaning that this year, one white farmer has been killed every five days.
Gabriel Stols, 35, told the Independent how his younger brother Kyle, 21, was shot dead by four people on a game reserve near Bloemfontein.
“What is happening to us is torture, it is slaughter, it is brutal, it is revenge. The world doesn’t know what is happening in South Africa,” he said.
The farms in question are privately owned by whites.
The opinion is advanced by some black activists that whites need to be forcibly stripped of their property because of past white oppression of blacks:
https://youtu.be/a_bDc7FfItk?t=3176
Government explicitly threatens "whites" if they want to protest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_bDc7Ff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMOmQJCt
Part of a documentary about attacks on white farmers in South Africa.
Frequent brutal attacks has made their life almost unbearable, and they start think about leaving South Africa to go to Australia, New Zealand, or elsewhere. They have now a special word in Afrikaans, "plaasmoorde", meaning "farm murders".
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2018/03/1
Australian minister for immigration and border protection, Peter Dutton, said recently that his department was considering fast-tracking visas for white South African farmers looking to emigrate to Australia. He said white farmers deserve "special attention" owing to the "horrific circumstances" they face in South Africa – because of government's bid to expropriate land without compensation and the increasing number of farm attacks and murders.
Wikipedia on the plaasmoorde: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Afri
Mainstream media downplays the importance of attacks on whites in comparison with other problems in South Africa. One of these problems is the political crisis.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/f
South Africa has been pitched into an unprecedented political crisis after the ruling ANC party admitted that President Jacob Zuma had defied its orders to resign, and that it had little idea of when the 75-year-old head of state would respond to its demand to leave office.
Ace Magashule, the ANC’s secretary general, confirmed on Tuesday that the party had decided to “recall” Zuma from his “deployment as president” but said that no deadline had been given and there had been no discussion of bringing a motion of no-confidence to oust him.
After 20 years, the all-black South African government is still unable to improve the life of its black citizens. Who is to blame? The whites, because they were the oppressors up until 20 years ago. As the activist of South Africa's "Black Land First" movement says in the video, "we have waited peacefully long enough, and unfortunately, - unfortunately!, - we need to take back what is ours, through confrontation and war."
This logic is certainly racist, but the term "racist" is nowadays too vague and politically loaded. For instance, many people claim that non-whites "cannot be" racist or that their racism is justified because it is "reverse racism". So nowadays we can't simply call a policy "racist" to dismiss it; we need to find some fault with the policy.
So let us ask - is the South Africa's government correct about expropriating land from whites to compensate for past oppression? Let us apply the same logic to different historical circumstances.
The Jews were disproportionately represented among Communist activists and leaders in the Russian revolution of 1917. The Communist oppression brought ruin and unspeakable suffering to the country. "We have waited long enough. If we strip the Jews of power and give the power back to Russians, the country will flourish again."
The Jews were disproportionately represented among rich capitalists and bankers, who brought ruin to the German people. "We have waited long enough. If we strip the Jews of their financial and political influence and instead put the power back into German hands, the country will flourish again."
The white Boers in the South Africa were oppressing the various African tribes who lived there, and seized their land. "We have waited long enough. If we strip the whites of their land and political power, and instead put the land and the power back into black African hands, the country will flourish again."
The white Americans were oppressing African slaves in the USA. Today, 150 years after abolishing slavery, African Americans are still much poorer and less well developed than the white US-Americans. "We have waited long enough. If we take the money and the power away from whites and put it into black hands, the black community will flourish."
Looking at these examples, I see that there are two things wrong with this logic.
1. The sanction is applied to all members of a given "oppressor" race, not just to people who were actually doing the oppression. Is it justified?
The main argument in favor of this: All members of their race benefitted from oppression because the stolen wealth and power was distributed among all of them, since they naturally help each other, being members of the same race. This is so even if the oppression happened many years ago or if the oppression was performed by a tiny minority of that race. Therefore, all of them are now liable to sanction and retribution.
The main argument against this: It is unjust to impose a penalty on so many people who had nothing to do with the oppression, just because they share a certain race. Some of these people are poor and suffering, despite the supposed benefits of having oppressed another race. So, the "sharing" of power and wealth (stolen from the oppressed race) is certainly not uniform among the oppressors. It is unjust to punish people who did not perform any acts of oppression and who have had no share in its supposed benefits.
I find both arguments somewhat weak, but it's a trade-off dispute about what is more important - serving justice to people who were previously oppressed and are now poor, or to people who are also now poor but were not previously oppressed, and did not perform any acts of oppression. Phrased like that, the question becomes "victimhood olympics" that can have no productive solution.
2. It is assumed that things will flourish again once the power is taken away from the offending group and into the hands of the previously oppressed.
The main argument in favor of this: No people can flourish if the power and the wealth are taken away from them by people of another race. Oppression must stop, and what was taken away must be returned.
The main argument against this: There is no empirical evidence that the flourishing will ensue automatically after transfer of power, and even if the oppressors are physically gone. On the other hand, there is ample empirical evidence that countries that become independent of their oppressors fail to develop well and plunge into abject misery, corruption, civil war, and chaos. There is plenty of historical precedent that getting rid of an ethnic group does more damage than good. Countries such as 15-th century Spain that expelled the Jews - have become poorer as a result. Jews are not the only ethnic minority that got booted out of various countries due to their "unfairly obtained" wealth. It is always the case that some ethnic groups are more successful than others, and they are then hated and persecuted. In Europe, this ethnic group was the Jews; elsewhere, it was the Gujarati in Uganda, the Igbo in Nigeria, or the Chinese minority in Malaysia that was (and remains) conspicuously successful in spite of official racial discrimination. They are successful because of their specific culture and skills that the natives lack. Once they are gone, these skills are gone too.
To me, this is the strongest argument against the policy now being pursued in South Africa. The ruling black majority could expropriate land from white farmers; they could expel or even kill all white farmers; but none of this will achieve any tangible improvements in terms of wealth or order in their country. Quite on the contrary; looking at their relative economic success, the white farmers obviously carry skills and culture that the natives lack, so the departure of whites will mean an even steeper decline for South Africa.
