"ANC implementing reverse apartheid": Maimane

Pitbull said:
Crimes. That is why those who did them are either in jail, faced the TRC and got amnesty or just never got caught/pointed out. Again, these were crimes committed under Apartheid.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense to me. They weren't crimes in the conventional sense. Those laws were (by definition) not illegal in SA at the time.

adinfinitum said:
Apartheid was bad okay. We get that. It was discrimination. The new BEE policy is discriminatory too. I see 1 + 1 = 2. So does Maimane. Not difficult to understand. Oh wait sorry I forgot - if it's black against white then it can't be racism or discrimination. My bad....
Click to expand...

I am saying that the level of hardship experienced under BEE cannot be compared to the hardships experienced under 'crimes' which simply happened to occur at the same time that Apartheid was a government policy? (Is that how I should put it Pitbull?)
 
Last edited:
cr@zydude said:
News24

I'm sorry Mmusi, but I don't agree. If anything, this seems like a cheap attempt at belittling just how terrible Apartheid was. The ANC has done a lot wrong, but nothing near as bad as the NP. The ANC (as an organisation) is like the dumb kid at the back of the class. He means to do well, and thinks that he does, but he hardly ever gets the answers right. he doesn't mean to do any harm though. Also, he says that the ANC doesn't provide opportunities, but claims to want a market based economy. What macroeconomic policy shift would he bring, the ANC has done a great job overall with economic policy.
Click to expand...

Lol, disagree, ANC is like the juvenile delinquent it is - the one that steals everyone's lunch money and stationery, copies the homework, steals the exam papers, smokes behind the bicycle shed, bunks class, skips detention, destroys school property, etc. Beyond useless.
 
Pitbull said:
Crimes. That is why those who did them are either in jail, faced the TRC and got amnesty or just never got caught/pointed out. Again, these were crimes committed under Apartheid.
Click to expand...

:confused:

They were laws and policies of the Apartheid government, not aberrations. They were the goal and reality of Apartheid.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
:confused:

They were laws and policies of the Apartheid government, not aberrations. They were the goal and reality of Apartheid.
Click to expand...

I think that you'll have to change your statement to being the laws and policies of the Nationalist government because the ANC government also has Apartheid laws and policies of its own.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
The reality (and explicit goal) was much more than that.
Click to expand...

I'm not taking anything away from the horror of Apartheid, but how was it not purely segregation or discrimination on grounds of race?

Discrimination: The unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice.

I don't necessarily agree with Maimane's statement, but I can see an argument to be made that South Africa today does utilise a lesser form of Apartheid if you go by the definition of Apartheid above.

Albereth said:
Whose definition is that?
Click to expand...

Google's:

Apartheid_zpso0qkdmvn.png
 
Really? Please say he was misquoted. He can't be that stupid and naive. Reverse apartheid? Dude is too young for politics.
 
cr@zydude said:
That doesn't make sense to me. They weren't crimes in the conventional sense. Those laws were (by definition) not illegal in SA at the time.
Click to expand...

:erm:

So it's ok if you deny someone their human rights just because it was ok with the law back then? I think you should have told the TRC this then. BEE and AA is discrimination based on race and it's apartheid. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Which is what you're trying to say.

As an example, and why I asked if you speak for the coloured people. The Western Cape had to go to court for BEE to represent the area (Province) and not the country's demographics as the coloured population out weighed the black population but got the shortest end of the stick next to whites. Are you actually saying that it not racist or discrimination based on race?
 
Bryn said:
I'm not taking anything away from the horror of Apartheid, but how was it not purely segregation or discrimination on grounds of race?

Discrimination: The unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice.

I don't necessarily agree with Maimane's statement, but I can see an argument to be made that South Africa today does utilise a lesser form of Apartheid if you go by the definition of Apartheid above.



Google's:

Apartheid_zpso0qkdmvn.png
Click to expand...

Well, and not that I am old enough to recall this, I thought that the idea of apartheid was about separation, not segregation. Or is that too subtle?
 
cr@zydude must either be a black guy benefitting from BEE or a white guy living in denial.
 
Again...

“The ANC are implementing reverse apartheid,” he said.

“The party and the government aren’t creating opportunities for South Africans. At least 25% of people are unemployed.

“The DA will now make sure that the dream of a democratic South Africa will come true,” he added.

The event was part of a DA campaign for freedom, equality and opportunity.

"This is my second visit to Mitchells Plain and certainly not my last," he continued.

"Enough is enough. South Africans are tired. The government provides no opportunities for South Africans.
Click to expand...

People didn't listen to everything being said, to put this to the article, certain readers made a early conclusion. How many times did this community discuss opportunities?

People are now brushing Maimane, like they brushed Sparks.
 
Bryn said:
I'm not taking anything away from the horror of Apartheid, but how was it not purely segregation or discrimination on grounds of race?

Discrimination: The unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice.

I don't necessarily agree with Maimane's statement, but I can see an argument to be made that South Africa today does utilise a lesser form of Apartheid if you go by the definition of Apartheid above.
Click to expand...

Because it's a decontextualised usage of the term that allows for completely nonsense analogies like saying we're living in a new Apartheid. The analogy is garbage, imo.

Lots of other countries had discrimination based on race, but Apartheid was unique precisely because of the severity of that discrimination and everything else that went along with it.
 
It sounds to me like you are arguing semantics rather than principle.

One group of you (incl. Pitbull) is sticking to the strict definition (which you get if you google define: apartheid), i.e. " a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race". The other group is lumping racial segregation together with other atrocities committed by the NP and calling that Apartheid collectively.

We all agree that Apartheid-era government was terrible and that loads of people suffered terribly as a result.

You cannot, however, deny the fact that the current ANC government legally classifies races and discriminates against certain races based on these classifications using laws (in an attempt to rectify imbalances caused by the old government). In the strict, formal definition sense, this too is "Apartheid", but calling it thus evokes a natural, emotional response beyond the formal definition of the word, because of its other connotations.

TL;DR version: strictly speaking, and formally defined, it is "reverse Apartheid", but calling it thus is really insensitive because of other connotations of the word. So IMHO, Maimane is correct, in a strict sense, but an insensitive ass for the way he phrases it.

EDIT: seems like OD sort of beat me to what I was trying to say.
 
Agreed. Apartheid is here, alive and well. If you're too stubborn to see that then you've already let the ANC off the hook to do whatever they please.
 
Two issues, so let's deal with them separately.

Pitbull said:
:erm:

So it's ok if you deny someone their human rights just because it was ok with the law back then? I think you should have told the TRC this then. BEE and AA is discrimination based on race and it's apartheid. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right. Which is what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...

Not at all. These were crimes against humanity, but they were not crimes in SA, as they were law. This does not make them right. You were the one who claimed that atrocities carried out under Apartheid should not be labelled as Apartheid, but should be labelled as crime. I showed why they should not be labelled as crimes.

BEE and AA are discrimination, but do not cause anywhere near the level of hardship as was experienced under Apartheid. Musi calling the two policies the same feels disingenuous to me.


Pitbull said:
As an example, and why I asked if you speak for the coloured people. The Western Cape had to go to court for BEE to represent the area (Province) and not the country's demographics as the coloured population out weighed the black population but got the shortest end of the stick next to whites. Are you actually saying that it not racist or discrimination based on race?
Click to expand...

This was simply a mistake of implementation in the WC. Did the ANC seem to favour black citizens over coloured ones, with their stance in the WC, yes. However, AA and BEE are both fair, in my and international communities' opinions. They are programs designed to correct for a truly horrid past.
 
cr@zydude said:
While unemployment is high, most of these are structural issues.
Click to expand...

Structural issues that arose because of corruption and spending the money on fancy cars rather than upgrades. Doesn't take a genius to see that, I suggest you try and open your eyes. If Zuma can blame apartheid for everything bad in this country then surely I can blame ANC and BEE for failing to correct it in the f#cking 20 years they've had power.
 
cr@zydude said:
That doesn't make sense to me. They weren't crimes in the conventional sense. Those laws were (by definition) not illegal in SA at the time.



I am saying that the level of hardship experienced under BEE cannot be compared to the hardships experienced under 'crimes' which simply happened to occur at the same time that Apartheid was a government policy? (Is that how I should put it Pitbull?)
Click to expand...

I think what is trying to be said is that South Africans tend to (unknowingly/unintentionally) expand the definition of apartheid by placing the crimes committed against the people by the apartheid government into the definition of apartheid. Just because crimes were committed against people under apartheid, doesn't necessarily mean its part of the apartheid definition? They were crimes against the people committed by the apartheid regime, but we don't need an 'apartheid regime' to have those crimes committed against people. At least thats what I'm understanding. Edit: and visa versa, you don't need those crimes to make it an apartheid government
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X