Steve Hofmeyr: I voted yes for the new South Africa but it was a mistake

Steve Hofmeyr: I voted yes for the new South Africa but it was a mistake

Steve Hofmeyr, one of South Africa’s top musicians and actors, said he was disappointed with how the country has evolved since the 1994 elections.

 

[TheChamp]

I would not use that term if all racial laws was just removed instead we are now sitting with more racial than in prime apartheid.

I was a small child when all this happened and are being told I cannot do stuff because my skin is not dark.

The exact reason sanctions were placed on South Africa is still in affect.

The current government is acting as if I am a enemy and not a resident.

So why do you think we don't have the same or even worse sanctions as we did during apartheid if democracy is worse that Apartheid?

You think the whole world is conspiring with the ANC against you or why are they being so lenient?

 

[vigras rojara]

So why do you think we don't have the same or even worse sanctions as we did during apartheid if democracy is worse that Apartheid?

You think the whole world is conspiring with the ANC against you or why are they being so lenient?

This whole "145 and eleventy racist laws" chant is really past its sell by date. No-one is prepared to quantify it, it's just a "TDS" type retort when someone has nothing else to say or lacks the ability to quantify something.

Imagine back in the bad old days how absurd it would have been if protesters had run around protesting xxx number of racist laws - it would have been ridiculous. Protests were linked to actual laws, like the pass laws, group areas act, etc etc. The list goes on.

It was never difficult for people to articulate where the unfairness was, but I have yet to see anyone protesting outside parliament about being oppressed by the extremely persecutory SA Library for the Blind Act.

The supposed quantity of legislation is also a complete red herring. That would imply that if the government abolished all the dreaded 145 and eleventy laws, and passed just one, saying that all whites should be put to death immediately, that would somehow be less racist as it would be only one law.

It's just total nonsense.

 

[TheChamp]

This whole "145 and eleventy racist laws" chant is really past its sell by date. No-one is prepared to quantify it, it's just a "TDS" type retort when someone has nothing else to say or lacks the ability to quantify something.

Imagine back in the bad old days how absurd it would have been if protesters had run around protesting xxx number of racist laws - it would have been ridiculous. Protests were linked to actual laws, like the pass laws, group areas act, etc etc. The list goes on.

It was never difficult for people to articulate where the unfairness was, but I have yet to see anyone protesting outside parliament about being oppressed by the extremely persecutory SA Library for the Blind Act.

The supposed quantity of legislation is also a complete red herring. That would imply that if the government abolished all the dreaded 145 and eleventy laws, and passed just one, saying that all whites should be put to death immediately, that would somehow be less racist as it would be only one law.

It's just total nonsense.

Yeah, I already knew what I was dealing when he spoke about surrendering the country, firstly who did it belong to and who was it surrendered to?

If you feel so entitled, that democracy, where you are allowed to vote for your own party unlike in the good old days, is the same as surrendering the country, you have way more issues than you care to admit.

 

[vigras rojara]

Yeah, I already knew what I was dealing when he spoke about surrendering the country, firstly who did it belong to and who was it surrendered to?

If you feel so entitled, that democracy, where you are allowed to vote for your own party unlike in the good old days, is the same as surrendering the country, you have way more issues than you care to admit.

Yeah, I noticed that. The implication is that the country belonged to some people more than others, which is problematic.

It seems to be a common feeling that democracy only works if your team wins. Which is, of course, the antithesis of democracy.

 

[MrGray]

The real problem wasn't the "YES" vote, which was the morally correct position at the time.

The real problem was that we didn't have a vote on the final constitution which contained loopholes and concessions allowing endless race discrimination, and a parliament with no direct representation component or handbrakes on majority abuse.

 

[WanderingMind]

What cant you do?

Apparently you can't use Google.

 

[Dimpie (JIGSAW)]

 

[WanderingMind]

So why do you think we don't have the same or even worse sanctions as we did during apartheid if democracy is worse that Apartheid?

You think the whole world is conspiring with the ANC against you or why are they being so lenient?

That's a loaded question.

There are no conspiracy just basic patterns that have been repeated multiple times in history.

Bad people do bad things to good people and calls themselves good. Fools believe them.

If I could take away all diseases in this world there are still people who would hate me and and murder me.

The bible has a great example of Judas who saw every good thing Jesus did and still betrayed him.

People seeing somebody in the road hurt and needing help and just walking past. Believing their non action is okay.

Choosing to do nothing is still a choice.

 

[Cray]

The problem is that the people who got electricity after 1994 either refused to pay for their electricity or were unable to do so. This quickly led to municipalities collapsing all over the country because they still had to pay Eskom for that electricity. The roll out of power to more people is often mentioned by the ANC as a victory but they conveniently forget to say what it cost the country,

Sure, but it was an illustration that people who claim SA was first world probably didnt experience the country from the point of view of the average black person.

 

[TheChamp]

The real problem wasn't the "YES" vote, which was the morally correct position at the time.

The real problem was that we didn't have a vote on the final constitution which contained loopholes and concessions allowing endless race discrimination, and a parliament with no direct representation component or handbrakes on majority abuse.

If there was to be a vote on the Constitution at the time, who would vote on it? Only white people as it was in the referendum or everyone?

 

[EADC]

Apparently you can't use Google.

You made a claim YOU cant do stuff I was wanting to know what that is.

 

[konfab]

This whole "145 and eleventy racist laws" chant is really past its sell by date. No-one is prepared to quantify it, it's just a "TDS" type retort when someone has nothing else to say or lacks the ability to quantify something.

Imagine back in the bad old days how absurd it would have been if protesters had run around protesting xxx number of racist laws - it would have been ridiculous. Protests were linked to actual laws, like the pass laws, group areas act, etc etc. The list goes on.

It was never difficult for people to articulate where the unfairness was, but I have yet to see anyone protesting outside parliament about being oppressed by the extremely persecutory SA Library for the Blind Act.

The supposed quantity of legislation is also a complete red herring. That would imply that if the government abolished all the dreaded 145 and eleventy laws, and passed just one, saying that all whites should be put to death immediately, that would somehow be less racist as it would be only one law.

It's just total nonsense.

Its entire purpose was to quantify it objectively. Which was why they didn't include how severe it might or might not be because that will require some subjective analysis.

At common law, the race of a person is legally irrelevant. This attribute can, however, be made relevant by statutes (legislation), regulations, and judgments of the superior courts. When an individual’s race is made relevant, the instrument through which that is done or enforced, is here included under the term “race law.”

In other words, “race law” is defined as any positive law, including statutes, regulations, and judgments of the courts, that makes or recognises race, skin-colour, or ethnicity as legally relevant.

Instruments that remove an existing racial handicap, burden, or disability from law – that is, makes race irrelevant – are not regarded as race law.

A mere textual reference to the words “white,” “black,” “disadvantage,” or “race” does not automatically automatically triggered inclusion in the Index. Some legal relevance must arise, regardless of whether that relevance is harmful or beneficial.

Provisions are first checked to determine that the reference is to a person’s skin-colour, race, or ethnicity (rather than the “race” of plants or animals, “white” phosphorus, or a prohibition on “disadvantaging” small businesses with anti-competitive conduct), and that the provision qualifies under the above definition of “race law” above (rendering race, skin-colour, or ethnicity legally relevant).

If you want a non-racial country, it should have no race laws on the books.

 

[Stonemason]

Sure, but it was an illustration that people who claim SA was first world probably didnt experience the country from the point of view of the average black person.

Or maybe that was the reason electricity was only distributed to certain areas prior to 1994.
All communities in rural areas had to content with less development prior to 1994. Now all communities everywhere looks in horror at the general decay around them.

 

[vigras rojara]

Its entire purpose was to quantify it objectively. Which was why they didn't include how severe it might or might not be because that will require some subjective analysis.



If you want a non-racial country, it should have no race laws on the books.

But then there might be no white people on the board of the SA Library for the Blind, which would lead to more gnashing of teeth.

 

[Kosmik]

Wow, did so many abstain?

You forget the pretty limited voter base at the time.

 

[rustypup]

But guess what, their education is in their home languages, they are taught English and such separately. So you're basically making it a lot harder on the poor child cause now they need to learn an entirely new language + the subject.
If education was in their home languages,

Let's take a step back and admit that, regardless of what language they're being taught in, our education system is - largely - failing. So the home-language advantage is clearly not much of one.

Let's also accept that "it's hard" is not a great reason to intentionally damage a child's development. Ditto feelings about cultural identity and other such tripe.

Let us also accept that a large part of development, (intellectual/cultural/social/future), and self-learning is significantly impacted by access to various written/printed literary artefacts, whether fictional or not, along with developing the necessary skill to absorb new concepts or knowledge.

Let us acknowledge that there is not a preponderance of literary works in all 11 official languages.

Let us acknowledge that rationalising in one language then switching mid-stream to that in formal texts, (science/engineering/etc), is not without cost.

<Complete anecdotal reference warning!>
My 4-year old niece from Denmark converses in virtually perfect English with zero issue. As did her siblings around the same age. This is because Denmark, alongside many of its neighbours, understands the importance of being proficient in the language of choice for international trade, education and negotiation and makes the effort.

This isn't about culture, intelligence or feelings. It's about being responsible with the future.

 

[Maurice Kitching]

That must be why they are forcing Mandarin on kids in school even though they are not native Mandarin speakers.

I'll grant this, though it's difficult to compare cultural China to cultural South Africa. Their language mandates were dynastic to start with, then came the cultural revolution, enforcement by the government post WW2, and eventually enforcement in law for the last 25 years or so. A large number of generations that had been using largely mandarin as the language of instruction as default.

I'm not saying it made it right. They got English instruction as additional language right. My only criticism would be their clampdown on non-Chinese English instructors, especially online.

 

[Lupus]

Let's take a step back and admit that, regardless of what language they're being taught in, our education system is - largely - failing. So the home-language advantage is clearly not much of one.

Let's also accept that "it's hard" is not a great reason to intentionally damage a child's development. Ditto feelings about cultural identity and other such tripe.

Let us also accept that a large part of development, (intellectual/cultural/social/future), and self-learning is significantly impacted by access to various written/printed literary artefacts, whether fictional or not, along with developing the necessary skill to absorb new concepts or knowledge.

Let us acknowledge that there is not a preponderance of literary works in all 11 official languages.

Let us acknowledge that rationalising in one language then switching mid-stream to that in formal texts, (science/engineering/etc), is not without cost.

<Complete anecdotal reference warning!>
My 4-year old niece from Denmark converses in virtually perfect English with zero issue. As did her siblings around the same age. This is because Denmark, alongside many of its neighbours, understands the importance of being proficient in the language of choice for international trade, education and negotiation and makes the effort.

This isn't about culture, intelligence or feelings. It's about being responsible with the future.

Again, the actual education they receive is in Danish, not English. I think you're failing to understand this. All the countries you listed, even Denmark do not teach in English, it is another subject that is taught to the kids as another subject, it is not what they are taught in.
You're okay with kids who do not speak English having to first learn English then learn things while still trying to learn English at the exact same time? Whereas having things taught in your own home language removes that barrier, English would be a secondary language on top of that. You also seem to be okay with Afrikaans as a home language being used in Afrikaans schools to teach them in, but Zulu nope sorry (more speakers of Zulu then Afrikaans), Xhosa, Sotho or whatever.

 

[rustypup]

I think you're failing to understand this

Please do tell me how Danish family units work because clearly I'm ignorant?

You completely missed my point. They didn't learn English at school. They learned it from their parents. They speak it, naturally, at home.

They chose to make English a second home language. Because being realistic and responsible is more important than being stuck in the past.

That's the big change. That's where we need to get to.

You also seem to be okay with Afrikaans

I specifcally did not say this. The fact that you *think* I did is very interesting and says something about your personal bias in this.

 

[Smiggles]

Who taught you that it's okay to be such a bigot and ignorant fool? Nothing about PW Botha is 'spot on'. Sad that this thinking was even entertained.

We just had to move to smartphone access in our complex because of a break in.