Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Squonk, Oct 5, 2019.
Then what is your alternative solution to obtain justice? Or do you just want nothing to happen?
We have Squonks and Skwinks, but do we have Snerks?
I voted I like frogs 'cause frogs are kewl!
Classic white settler just looking for a hand out
For South Africa, to me it sounds like things go kinda like this:
- white colonials come and take land
- white people dominate natives for generations
- natives finally take control of government
- natives want to reappropriate stolen land
I don't see how this is "racism" against white people, since they were originally the invaders? It's not like the natives made them come there, and are now oppressing them, right? If someone gives you stolen property, you don't have any legal possession of that, so you can't really whine about authorities confiscating it. I don't feel that an excuse of "well my ancestors conquered it" means you get to have it forever. Sure these people aren't responsible for their ancestors' crimes, but why should they get to continue benefiting from them?
I absolutely do believe reparations need to be made to native tribes on the Americas (just like we need to do so for Africans as well), but I'm not sure what that'd look like, but I do know the situation isn't the same as in South Africa.
Most land probably changed hands many times over the centuries. White settlers have been in South Africa since the 17th century.
To use the stolen property analogy- if you bought property that was stolen 150 years ago and changed hands at least a few times you should then have to return it to someone who is the same race as the person it was stolen from?
Wow, you really missed my entire point.
You said I should "go back" to Europe, a part of this planet where I have never been in the first place. It's been over a century since my paternal great-grandparents (on my dad's mother's side) came to Canada. They were homesteaders in Alberta, so if anyone might be considered "colonizers," hop in a time machine and blame them (although they did everything legally, in accordance with government rules and regulations).
It's been almost a century since my paternal grandfather came over. If memory serves from the family stories, he gradually worked his way across Canada in various jobs. His last one before marrying my grandmother was farming.
So if you want me to "go back" to a place I have no direct connection to other than where my grandparents and great-grandparents and ancestors farther back came from... you pay for it. I have no means to do so, and no reason to either, other than a visit for a holiday.
Oh, but wait... my ancestors and their ancestors originally came from somewhere else. All the people in those countries need to "go back" to where they came from. And so on and on and on, until all the billions of people are clustered in East Africa, where the earliest-known human fossils were found.
As I said, it's going to get crowded there, and since they already have trouble sustaining their current population, it wouldn't be a beneficial situation.
I wasn't born until over 50 years after my great-grandparents came to this country, so take your "classic white settler" garbage and stuff it.
You are talking about a general, broad, and generic phenomenon that has dominated human history at least as far as it has been recorded or can be verifiably traced, and that groups of people have done to each other endless, around the world, within and across all sorts of different racial groupings, on every corner of the globe. Is there a point to this statement of the obvious with open-ended historical, sociological, and political application to almost any human situation being called out here as if being a SPECIFIC and RESTRICTED circumstance. Does ANYONE living on ANY piece of truly have ANY inalienable, true right to it, if you were to dig back far enough? Would the stain of the blood of conquest and illegitimate seizure be there if you looked far enough into the depths of history? Conquest and seizure of others' lands is not a WHITE - it's a HUMAN sin.
Therefore..... what? Based on your opinion what action should we take or not take? How can a more just society be achieved?
Non-white people can be racist, whether against each other, or against white people. This can be true in both the colloquial form of the word, describing racial prejudice, and the sociological form, describing structural or institutional racial inequality.
This is not, in itself, controversial. What is controversial is the attempt to refer to scattered instances of "racism against whites", and most often a simplified , to negate white racism in the West, either through some disingenuous whataboutism, or simply by asserting that racism is inevitable and natural (and, implicitly, good).
I don't think it's actually that complicated, and to the extent people make it complicated, my tendency is to believe they are feigning confusion because they don't want to have a serious conversation, they just want to be reassured that they personally do not have to change or introspect in any substantive way.
a common enemy will unite us
What justice are you demanding? And, are you one of many people today who believe that "justice" is one whole demographic, as a block, being redressed against another whole demographic as block (which sounds like what you're saying - and is, even though many modern Social Progressive groups are pushing a number of agendas with that theme, is NOT justice - in fact, it is a central plank of Fascistic and Nationalist Irrendtist ideologies).
Don't let me put words in your mouth. But are you endorsing a situation where an ethnicity that is 10% of the population owns 80% of the farming land due to racist policies of a previous regime?
And by endorsing I mean saying that the situation is sufficiently ok that we need do nothing about this situation. We should tell everyone that all is fine and that we should all just calm down.
Because property only exists if everyone buys into the situation.
The original Facebook thread was a real abortion lacking in logic, facts, or even basic common sense. As a guy who identifies as generally left of center it really makes me said to see what uneducated fools so many of the identitarian far left have become. There is basically nothing of liberal values in them at all.
The Mexica probably had such a disproportionate amount of ownership over the other Nahua and non-Nahua ethnicities in the Valley of Mexico upon Cortes' arrival, the Inca certainly did over the large Wari and other Ayamara speaking majority (among other ethnicities and languages in their empire when Pizzaro arrived, Mansa of Mali probably PERSONALLY at least that much land in his pre-Colonial West African Empire, and the Fula and Kanemi, AT LEAST, were as disproportionate land owners over other ethnicities in their empires in the region, as were the pre-Colonial Kongo, Swahili, Amhara, and even Zulu in their pre-Colonial Empires over other ethnicities. The Ottoman Turks were also guilty as charged, and such land-ownership disparity between rulers and subjects was more often the rule than the exception in many South, Southeast, East Asian nations and empires prior to colonial days. Again, how is this just a White, Colonial sin, exclusively?
Can you please answer his question without deflecting with whataboutism?
What do you think should happen in South Africa?
I have no idea. There aren't even clear demarcation lines for a political partition, and no way to enforce liberal-minded laws to bring equality and justice to the country with a realistic organ of authority that can be trusted, and prevent old hatreds from tainting all fair movements toward equalization and compensation, while allowing everyone a piece of the greatest nation of prosperity on the continent. All blames from the past aside, any solution is beyond me. It would take a literal miracle of statesmanship and social organization - something that is well beyond my powers to even conceive. That may sound cynical - but I see it as a realistic appraisal.
If you don't even know what you think should happen, why are you even arguing about it?
If someone has an idea for change, and you oppose it without presenting your own idea, then to me it sounds very clearly like you're saying you'd prefer things to just remain like they are, no?
I feel it's "bad faith" to simply argue against something when you don't have a counter proposal. If you really do think they should keep their land, can't you say so?
On a side note, I have to say I'm really shocked and disappointed. You used to be someone I greatly admired here, but lately it's like you're a totally different person. You used to so different, I don't know what happened
I'm not arguing against the need for change in South Africa. I had never said that once. I was talking about wrong-headed labelling, generalization, and "exclusive sin" arguments that were also a big part of the OP, and that are wrong-headed and will lead to distortion and revision of history, and exacerbate the social-right-wing vs. social-left-wing blame game conflict that is destroying so much of global society. I had not yet specifically addressed the other part of the OP at that point.
White Americans who want to fix mistakes of colonial past, can make their own personal contribution. And donate part of their property to Native Americans.
Separate names with a comma.