"ANC implementing reverse apartheid": Maimane

[Fulcrum29]

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.

Basically this, however there are more to the article,

...

He said that the police’s special units have been redeployed by the government to protect the president, rather than fight the problem of drugs and gangsterism on the streets.

‘Drug dealers are not hiding’

Maimane was accompanied by Cape Town mayor and Western Cape party leader Patricia de Lille.

De Lille implored the residents of Mitchells Plain to work with the Cape metro police and the provincial department of community safety to fight drug dealers and gang members.

“The national government cannot help you,” she said.

“You must work together to single out the offenders. Drug dealers are not hiding.

“They sell their drugs along with fruit and vegetables and with other things on the street.”

Several Western Cape Cabinet members, including Anton Bredell, Nomafrench Mbombo, Ivan Meyer and Albert Fritz, were also present.

the article is published by an news outlet, people needed to attend the DA campaign to experience the atmosphere, how things are being said and comprehended by listening and reading are two unique experiences.

Maimame didn’t speak about Apartheid policies, but the political symptom.

 

[Pitbull]

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.

I agree with this 100%.

 

[ShaunSA]

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.

You did phrase yours better. But this is MyBB. It will go over the heads of 9/10

Expect this thread to reach 10 pages of pointless arguing by sometime tomorrow

 

[Solarion]

And yet I am none of these things? What happens to me now? Can we discuss the topic at hand rather than try to tell me what my race and ideals are?

Fine.

 

[Archer]

However, AA and BEE are both fair, in my and international communities' opinions. They are programs designed to correct for a truly horrid past.

Heh?
It is a fact that BEE has only managed to enrich a few connected people. To who is that fair? Not the mass of people who truly suffered under Apartheid thats for sure

 

[thestaggy]

Stupid thing to say, to be honest.

Yes, the current leadership does champion racist policies, but it still isn't out-and-out apartheid.

 

[Archer]

Let us not forget - the ANC suggested and implemented that horrible dompas system where people without it were not allowed access to certain areas... woops

 

[Albereth]

The ANC is an organisation with race based policies. These policies are divisive and specifically targeting one of the race groups in the country. For now.

This is not something that has arisen out of some benign notion of 'each to his own', out of fear of being swamped by a majority, or out of a belief that one race is superior to another. It is borne out of straight forward malice.

To call it reverse apartheid is actually a cute and cuddly name relative to what is actually unfolding.

 

[Albereth]

Let us not forget - the ANC suggested and implemented that horrible dompas system where people without it were not allowed access to certain areas... woops

Yep - now you need an unabridged birth certificate.

 

[Fulcrum29]

Let us not forget - the ANC suggested and implemented that horrible dompas system where people without it were not allowed access to certain areas... woops

Woops - Many locals and MyBB participants supported the system in mention.

 

[Fulcrum29]

Yep - now you need an unabridged birth certificate.

You also supported the system.

 

[Albereth]

You also supported the system.

I think influx control is a wonderful idea.

 

[ChocolateBadger]

Eh I would still vote DA even after a statement like that. I may not agree with him on many points, but that's still better than not agreeing with Zuma on every point. I still say to those who are now questioning the DA. What's your best realistic alternative? EFF? Ha.

 

[Drifter]

I'm saying that we are not in Apatheid version 2, and that calling current policies that makes a mockery of the real struggles which people went through.



While unemployment is high, most of these are structural issues. SA has weathered the post 2008 recession (could later be called a depression) far better than many other countries. We only grew 1.3% last year, but we did grow. Have you seen the growth rates in places like Ireland and Greece since 2008?



Yes, simple racial classification was the smallest part. People seem to have quickly forgotten just how **** Apartheid really was.

The how come so many of the previously disadvantaged want the old apartheid system and values back?

 

[Fulcrum29]

I think influx control is a wonderful idea.

To this I can agree, it how the system is implemented, controlled and managed.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

The how come so many of the previously disadvantaged want the old apartheid system and values back?

Say what now? :wtf:

 

[Fulcrum29]

The how come so many of the previously disadvantaged want the old apartheid system and values back?

They don’t want the system back, it is in the very same essence as Maimane made his statement, there is little to no opportunity under the ANC governance.

 

[Drifter]

Say what now? :wtf:

Yep, there was a video clip posted on MyBB as just one example. Mostly the older generation. They feel they were better off under the Nats.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

Yep, there was a video clip posted on MyBB as just one example. Mostly the older generation. They feel they were better off under the Nats.

That doesn't mean they want it back...

 

[Getafix]

Two issues, so let's deal with them separately.



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.




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.

It is discrimination. At its best that is what Apartheid was. The classification was black or white. Blacks could not do this and whites could do that.

Now you say discrimination is fair? You claim it as restitution.

The classification is still black or white. Is discrimination = apartheid? or does two wrongs make a right?