A nasty deal indeed!

[stoke]

LOL @ stepper.
I just don't see one of the super rich even leaning in the direction of "goodwill and prosperity for all", more like "goodwill and prosperity for me - skrew you".

Take a look at the super rich (More than R 1bn) that exist in SA today, and what they're doing for the country. Take a close look at how many people are employed by the back super rich vs the other super-rich ones.

That's what is worrying me, the BEE inspired rich ones have become rich without any infrastructure supporting and feeding that wealth. Effectively, taking the money out of circulation, and strangling it (The money), making the country poorer.

i.e. How does a BEE super rich feed money into the economy ? Methinks that it's impossible for a BEE to do this.

 

[Darth Garth]

To me it should read as all kids that started their schooling after 94, should be viewed the same way irrespective of race or background.

I disagree !!!.

Your chances in succeeding in life depends to a great degree on your home situation when growing up , more so than the sort of school you go to.

I know for a fact that my daughter who has a want for nothing (shelter, food, clothing,water,electricity,cosy transport to school) will have a far greater chance to succeed in life compared to the kid of the chap whom I employ as a casual labourer who live in an one room RDP house struggling to raise them.

This chap ain't stupid but he did not have the oppertunity that my parents could give me ... now it is simply a cycle of self perpetuating poverty that will also swallow up his kids.

There are the few bright exception but most of them don't make it.

 

[Debbie]

It seems to me that no-one supports BEE, except the black political elite and the less than 400-odd who make massive gains from it.

And the most vociferous critics of BEE happen to be black (COSATU, Desmond Tutu, etc) - now that should tell you something!

 

[Debbie]

I disagree !!!.
Your chances in succeeding in life depends to a great degree on your home situation when growing up , more so than the sort of school you go to.

Absolutely, I couldnt agree more. The legacy of apartheid is so entrenched it continues to dictate socio-economic status on the basis of colour. As a white person, I recognise that I continue to benefit from apartheid even today - for example, by virtue of the fact that I got to go to some of the country's top school. Anyone who disputes this lacks an appropriate understanding of history.

But at the same time, unfortunately, our government continues to judge people's needs by race alone, when it should be economic need that qualifies one for certain opportunities.

 

[biltonguy]

BEE is racist

The whole idea behind BEE is racist, but not in the obvious way of transfering money and power from whites to a few blacks. Rather, this new elite is supposed to use its new found power to employ the "previously disadvantaged", contribute to poor communities, and all those sweet things.

Anyway my point is, its as though BEE is saying "we cant trust private companies (which are mostly white owned) to do these things"

 

[stepper]

The whole idea behind BEE is racist, but not in the obvious way of transfering money and power from whites to a few blacks. Rather, this new elite is supposed to use its new found power to employ the "previously disadvantaged", contribute to poor communities, and all those sweet things.

Anyway my point is, its as though BEE is saying "we cant trust private companies (which are mostly white owned) to do these things"

Well there are some 'greedy' white companies which see this ugly monster as their way out of dicy situations by selling their non-performing entities to this silly bunch of ex-ANC members.

 

[mbs]

But at the same time, unfortunately, our government continues to judge people's needs by race alone, when it should be economic need that qualifies one for certain opportunities.

Now that's a loaded statement, if ever there was one. It presupposes that GEAR, IDP, MTEFs, and so on are all based on a racial premise, which is very definitely not the case - if anything, 'economic equality' is the underlying principle to all of these, and focusses on attempts to redistribute service delivery, economic opportunity, etc. to those areas where such things are minimal or non-existent. It just so happens that ALL of the areas concerned are occupied by black people - prior to 1994, I came across no evidence of ANY such area being occupied by white people, throughout my country-wide travels and travails. The tragedy is that currently the actual realisation of such policies are fraught with the opportunity for corruption and greed, mostly realised after the fact. But then again, that's typical of a government project, where governance issues mostly take a back seat to evidence of delivery - anybody remember the thousands of toilets built in the veld, with not a single house in sight?

 

[Debbie]

Now that's a loaded statement, if ever there was one. It presupposes that GEAR, IDP, MTEFs, and so on are all based on a racial premise, which is very definitely not the case

Granted mbs, you make a good point, but your argument doesn't hold up across every example. To illustrate my point, I use an example of government-funded scholarships.

The National Research Foundation give millions in scholarships to postgrad students every year. There are three main categories -
1) Scarce skills (open to all, based on academic perfomance and area of study)
2) Prestigious (open to all, based on academic perfomance)
3) Equity (open to only black, coloured and Indian scholars)

The third category presupposes that only black, coloured and Indian students who are reasonably good scholars are in financial need. Why are so-called 'equity' scholarships not based on ANY resonably good student with financial need?

A second case in point where your argument fails is if one simply looks at the literature of GEAR, the erstwhile RDP, and other government policies. Such policies refer explicitly to race, not economic need. Hell, even look at the Telecoms Act - Race is mentioned explicitly.

To say that "it just so happens that ALL of the areas concerned are occupied by black people" is to fall into the trap of the ANC's claim that they are constructing a non-racial democracy.

There is a fundamental conflict of ideology in what the ANC does and what the ANC says - they SAY they are constucting a non-racial democracy, but then proceed to base a number of policies on former racial classifications (i.e. economic policies, AA, BEE). The ANC's actions shout "multi-racial democracy", but their words say "Non-racial democracy" - there is a very important difference betweent the two.

Don't read me wrong, I am not opposed to a non-racial democracy, neither am I opposed to a multi-racial democracy. What I am opposed to is equivocation and ideological ambivilence on the issue - the ANC has failed to make words and actions congruent to a common ideology. Pick one, dammit!

 

[Debbie]

Mbs, your argument does hold some water, but I want to point out that also fails in the AA and BEE policies of government.

You contend that economic redistribution, in the domain of service delivery, is based on need - "those areas where [services] are minimal or non-existent". The implication, you suggest, is that all govt policies are simply based on reaching the 'have-nots' by not taking race into consideration. AA and BEE provide excellent examples of where your argument doesnt hold up.

Don't read me wrong, I am not opposed to AA (though I am opposed to BEE, and I am opposed to particular ways in which AA has materialised ). I just think that the ANC should stop parading as an organisation that places no weight on colour. There are occasions when it is ok to place some weight on colour.

 

[onionpeel]

I am a currently disadvantaged white person and I am still trying to figure out where my monthly tax money goes...

 

[mbs]

Debbie2, I was quite prepared to debate all of this with you, until I came across this statement of yours:

Hell, even look at the Telecoms Act - Race is mentioned explicitly.

Now, knowing said Act reasonably well, I wondered if I'd been under a mistaken impression all along, and decided to check. Unsurprisingly, I could find no trace of race being explicitly mentioned. Just to make sure, I even copied the text of the Act into a word processor and did a search for 'race keywords' - race, racial, black, asiatic, coloured, white, indian, etc. Then I realised what the potential problem is - your interpretation of stated government intentions as evidenced in much post-1994 legislation, concerning the promotion of equity with regards to 'previously disadvantaged groups'. Yes, that reference is explicitly there, as in many other statutes/regulations, but justifiably so too - that is not racist by any stretch of the imagination (unless, of course, you happen to be one of those who will now be disadvantaged by such provisions, and take umbrage/exception to it, like many of those on this forum).

The harsh reality of the situation is that our societal inequalities remain, exacerbated by the greed evidenced in the actions of those morons personally benefiting from BEEE (black equity and economic empowerment), which I see as being an all-encompassing framework for promoting societal equity - this includes AA, 'designated group' recruitment, 'N' share issues, 'mezzanine financing', and so on. That does not make it racist, nor does it lessen the clearly apparent need for it, the involvement of the likes of Ngcaba and Ngonyama notwithstanding.

It all boils down to your frame of reference - have a re-read of Stepper's post. Yes, there are those on both sides of the 'colour fence' who have been either disadvantaged or advantaged by current BEEE legislation, just as they were by apartheid legislation in the bad old days, but I ask you this simple question: How else do we build and promote an equable society of mutual benefit to all citizenry? That's the problem which policy-makers wrestle with, compounded by the inequalities inherited from the previous dispensation. The ANC have taken the non-racial 'democratic' route, coupled to the conscious growth and promotion of a 'black middle class' (much as I disagree with this), leveraged by mechanisms such as BEEE statutory provisions. What we currently see is a bunch of criminally-inclined cretins taking monetary advantage of this, which doesn't necessarily make such mechanisms wrong. IMHO, they should be tightened to disallow opportunistic benefit, which I've been saying since 1994 to anybody who wanted to listen. Ironically enough, this very point is raised in this past week's M&G editorial...

Bottom line: if we cannot agree on a non-emotive, 'colourless' interpretation of the basic premise offered by BEEE provisions, we cannot discuss/debate further, even in those areas where we might appear to be in complete agreement, such as the completely sickening and downright disgusting actions of politico's, ex-politico's and ex-government public servants.

 

[Debbie]

mbs, I apologise. You are right, the telecoms act does not mention race. I was confusing it with the white paper - i tend to equate the two in my mind. Sorry for my misinformation, I am wrong on this.

The only point on which you and I disagree seems to be that you think that the ANC's attempt to redress the past are 'colourless', whilst i think they put too much weight on colour as the be-all and end-all economic indicator. I dont see any other point where we disagree.

My major complaint with the ANC is not that they are pursuing racially-based policies - indeed, I think doing this is essential - my major problem is that the ANC clouds their policies by pretending that they are not race-based.

What I am saying is that the ANC should say what they mean and mean what they say. I'll say it again: ANC policies are multi-racial, but their words are non-racial. It is this that I have a problem with.

 

[[)roi(]]

I have found this to be a very interesting debate indeed...

I think it's a simple fact that this will take a long time and simply said NO there isn't a tried and tested set of rules for readdressing the wrongs of the past, a simple look at USA will show you that readdressing past inhumane practices is not simply achieved in a few years. e.g. in the USA where the black person is the minority, they are still the target in news; black male is in the mind of the average American synonymous with death, violence and rape. Ask yourself a question is it any different here?

Merit given that considering our the situation things have gone significantly better post 1994 than most people could have ever imagined. I know that a number of people in my circle were camping up on food and ammunition, expecting the worst, and were significantly surprised by what happen.

It's important to understand that this is a learning process, and therefore a number of mistakes will be made along the way, but this is still not good enough reason to pass judgement on the attempts being made or to give up on the process entirely, it's simply said a very necessary process, and unfortunately we can't and won't all be satisfied with the process and/or outcome.

 

[Debbie]

Good sensible post [)roi[).

 

[rebel]

BEE, AA, etc are all here to stay. The government isn't doing anything to help people in the townships. The same people that attend township schools will suffer when they finish school because those schools are considered crap by most people.

I'm against BEE only because it makes a few people very rich while doing absolutely nothing for the poor. My neighbour is so rich now he has 5 expensive cars because he started a BEE company in September last year.

Now we should all know where our tax money goes. Definition of the ANC: Greed!

 

[stoke]

Good - sensible post Droid - rubbish.

"and unfortunately we can't and won't all be satisfied with the process and/or outcome" - AS A MINIMUM, the Previously Disadvantaged Individuals must be advantaged. THIS IS NOT HAPPENING. This is why everyone is so pissed off, and JUSTIFYABLY so. This complacency that Droid is proposing is bull.

SIDE ::
Ever heard on the RADIO "2 black people robbed a bank in Wherever Today" ?
Ever heard on the RADIO "2 white people robbed a bank in Wherever Today" ?

Now when did the use of the word Black in the media become illegal, and who spawned that ideology ? C'mon - don't blind yourselves.

Interesting to note that the ANC propaganda engine is trying to make the minority (White's) topmost on the list of people to hate, opposite of what America is doing (Credit to Droid).

 

[[)roi(]]

Good - sensible post Droid - rubbish.

"and unfortunately we can't and won't all be satisfied with the process and/or outcome" - AS A MINIMUM, the Previously Disadvantaged Individuals must be advantaged. THIS IS NOT HAPPENING. This is why everyone is so pissed off, and JUSTIFYABLY so. This complacency that Droid is proposing is bull.

Did I hit a nerve? Nope prefer not to think of it as complacency, reality is a little more closer to the point. For me it's become tantamount to "pissing into a hurricane", a waste of time and you'll end up just getting soaked in the process with a "stench" that's best avoided... Might as well pin a target on your back...

Interesting to note that the ANC propaganda engine is trying to make the minority (White's) topmost on the list of people to hate, opposite of what America is doing (Credit to Droid).

Well as you quite rightly point out the similarities with the USA are uncanny...

 

[Debbie]

black male is in the mind of the average American synonymous with death, violence and rape. Ask yourself a question is it any different here?
....

but this is still not good enough reason to pass judgement on the attempts being made

Ok Stoke, on rereading [)roid[)'s post, on considering your comments, I agree with everything [)roi[) says minues the above two quotes.

The first quote: I suppose I didn't really think about too hard about this, almost certainly because of my own cultural bias. I mean, I hear a news headline "Men hijack woman and rape her at gun point", and I automatically assume it's black men who are responsible. It's hard to fight this assumption, and you are correct for pointing out that the media are not the ones who are creating a racial bias. The racial bias, for me at least, come from within me.

This is something which I do make a conscious attempt to fight, more than than most people I think - for example, a friend of mine and I got into a debate about crime in SA. She said that all hijackers were black. She had recently experienced an armed robbery, and a hijacking just a few days after this. I've been trying to not let this lead her to believe that all black people are 'bad', as it were. She challenged me to find a white hijacker. I did, complete with photograph.

The second quote: Yeah, it seems [)roi[) is advocating complacency, which is something I do not agree with. But I think that what [)roi[) says in this post must be considered in light of other posts he has made on the topic. If you look at just this post alone, you are correct in your criticisms. But if you look at it in context, I think that he is simply pointing out that conditions in SA are a million fold better than they could have been, and that the ANC has done a lot of good in SA for which they deserve credit - for example, created a stable economy. You are correct, this does not mean we must sit back and not complain, I just get happy when people recognise that the ANC is not all bad.

[)roi[), please correct me if I am presuming too much.

 

[stoke]

 

[Debbie]

---> LOL, that all?