Arbiter
Well-Known Member
Although AA and reclaiming "the land of our ancestors" have become the collective poster child of the ANC, I have a niggle about its validity. In fact, about the general concept of affirmative action as a whole.
The question I have is this; how far back do we go? For how many centuries worth of inequality should the current generation be punished? And in which ways? And who decides that?
Germany
Take Germany for example. About sixty years ago, a group of individual industrialists and corporations provided the financial support for the greatest mass genocide of all time. Some of the corporations built the gas chambers and produced the gas. Their payout was exponentially larger than their initial investment.
Come the trial of Nuremburg and lots of Hitler's cronies got the rope for their deeds. One of the corporations' directors were also hanged.
But, in the end, probably 95% of the original funders walked away untouched by the Trial. They had made uncountable fortunes doing despicable deeds and they were not held accountable.
Deutschebank is the poster child for the Holocaust Trial. Around $ 6 billion has been sued out of them by survivors of the Holocaust. However, that is simply small change compared to what they made, sixty years ago.
Worse than that, because they take the spotlight, all other contributors are forgotten and ignored. Household names.
AEG, Telefunken, BASF, Bayer, Baxter, Aventis, Evonix. The Quandt family of Daimler Benz and BMW.
They were allowed to keep their winnings and they never faced any consequences for their actions. They funded a war that killed 60 million people and today, because of never being punished by The Hague or the UN, they make fat profits for their owners.
South Africa
On the other hand, South Africa has a gigantic redressing policy to fixer-upper the distribution of wealth. AA, BEE and all the rest of it, were created to transform the working of industry.
Along with lowered university and other job entry requirements, these policies have all been a disadvantage to white South Africans with the required skills. Those with qualifications and experience were largely driven out of the country, causing a massive skill shortage and damaging the economy. This benefits no one.
As for redressing, the first line of defense is the "I didn't do anything." line. I wasn't there, it was my father/grandfather/ancestor who took your land.
To which the counter is always "but you did benefit from it".
My question to this is, how far back do we trace this "benefit" that white people have had? Should land that was colonized three centuries ago now be taken from its current owner because of the colour of his skin? Should a black person be given an opportunity taken form a white person, for no reason other than his ancestry? To what extent does a white person's current wealth today, depend on the deeds of his ancestors?
In fact, should we not track down the descendants of the original inhabitants of the land and hand it back to them? Further yet, does this land, every inch of it, not belong to the lions and elephants that roamed here before humans?
Into this equation, consider Germany's situation. Just sixty years ago, its corporations put it through the biggest war in history. And because they faced no retaliation, it is has regained its first world country status once again, after losing it twice in the last century. Everyone has put the past behind them, despite the fact that there are still living people who were directly affected by it.
Should those corporations today be held accountable for what they did sixty years ago? Should their shareholders be taxed more than others? Should they be somehow limited because of the deeds of their company?
Should South Africa's economic growth be compromised and suppressed, causing a disadvantage to all its citizens, because of the deeds of colonists and the old NP, who are now fertilizing daffodils?
The question I have is this; how far back do we go? For how many centuries worth of inequality should the current generation be punished? And in which ways? And who decides that?
Germany
Take Germany for example. About sixty years ago, a group of individual industrialists and corporations provided the financial support for the greatest mass genocide of all time. Some of the corporations built the gas chambers and produced the gas. Their payout was exponentially larger than their initial investment.
Come the trial of Nuremburg and lots of Hitler's cronies got the rope for their deeds. One of the corporations' directors were also hanged.
But, in the end, probably 95% of the original funders walked away untouched by the Trial. They had made uncountable fortunes doing despicable deeds and they were not held accountable.
Deutschebank is the poster child for the Holocaust Trial. Around $ 6 billion has been sued out of them by survivors of the Holocaust. However, that is simply small change compared to what they made, sixty years ago.
Worse than that, because they take the spotlight, all other contributors are forgotten and ignored. Household names.
AEG, Telefunken, BASF, Bayer, Baxter, Aventis, Evonix. The Quandt family of Daimler Benz and BMW.
They were allowed to keep their winnings and they never faced any consequences for their actions. They funded a war that killed 60 million people and today, because of never being punished by The Hague or the UN, they make fat profits for their owners.
South Africa
On the other hand, South Africa has a gigantic redressing policy to fixer-upper the distribution of wealth. AA, BEE and all the rest of it, were created to transform the working of industry.
Along with lowered university and other job entry requirements, these policies have all been a disadvantage to white South Africans with the required skills. Those with qualifications and experience were largely driven out of the country, causing a massive skill shortage and damaging the economy. This benefits no one.
As for redressing, the first line of defense is the "I didn't do anything." line. I wasn't there, it was my father/grandfather/ancestor who took your land.
To which the counter is always "but you did benefit from it".
My question to this is, how far back do we trace this "benefit" that white people have had? Should land that was colonized three centuries ago now be taken from its current owner because of the colour of his skin? Should a black person be given an opportunity taken form a white person, for no reason other than his ancestry? To what extent does a white person's current wealth today, depend on the deeds of his ancestors?
In fact, should we not track down the descendants of the original inhabitants of the land and hand it back to them? Further yet, does this land, every inch of it, not belong to the lions and elephants that roamed here before humans?
Into this equation, consider Germany's situation. Just sixty years ago, its corporations put it through the biggest war in history. And because they faced no retaliation, it is has regained its first world country status once again, after losing it twice in the last century. Everyone has put the past behind them, despite the fact that there are still living people who were directly affected by it.
Should those corporations today be held accountable for what they did sixty years ago? Should their shareholders be taxed more than others? Should they be somehow limited because of the deeds of their company?
Should South Africa's economic growth be compromised and suppressed, causing a disadvantage to all its citizens, because of the deeds of colonists and the old NP, who are now fertilizing daffodils?
Whether you like it or not AA, BEE etc will be with us for anything from 5-15yrs minimum and if you want to screw your own race please move. It just further justifies some things like education, why bother training someone or race of people who will leave when you can train up people who will stay. Think before u talk crap as in this country it comes round and it bites u in the a$$.
