The articles make it out like everyone was entirely happy. That is obviously not the case. Them upset not mean that they did not agree out of desperation. They would tkae a better alternative, obviously.
How do you know it wasnt the case? Because the ANCYL, an organisation known to destroy anything and everything, destroyed something? They lived around the area, but was it their toilets that the government covered? No, it wasnt. So how do you know that the actual residents were really that unhappy? You dont. You just assume because of white guilt.
Ofcourse its better to have what they had. This isn't about that, its about sending a message that they want to be treated better and do not want accept the bare minimum which exacerbates them being forgotten about. Their message has fusk all to do with budget, obviously they are not as realistic as we are.
Sending a message? To what? To whom? Are we still struggling against apartheid? Do we need passive resistance, um****o wesizwe (spelling, not sure) bombing power plants? Remember who exactly is sending the message here - its not the community, its the ANCYL. Big difference.
Yes, I bet you that there really were still unhappy residents, who were not politically aligned but still upset, hence blaming the ANCYL!
Since the new enclosures were much like the ones they had built themselves, I'm not sure I agree with that, especially given the ANCYL and not the community destroyed them. I dont doubt that they would love more out of life - a house with a garden, a pool and a lawnmower, for example - but I dont agree that they were that unhappy about these enclosures.
This is another bigoted claim. Because the article says the metal used for the toilets was the same as the shacks, it automatically means that their shacks withstand the elements.
I'm not sure how bigotry comes into it - but I see lots of white guilt. Bigotry would be saying that they are too incompetent and/or lazy to build anything that could withstand the elements. But thats not what I think, I think these poor people have been abused by the ANCYL for political points. You seem to think that in destroying these structures, the ANCYL somehow acted as the citizen's champion.
And by not genuinely happy I do not mean that the toilets/metal enclosures did not benefit their lives or that they would deny it would benefit their lives. I mean that they would still want (and should be given) more, something as simple as a concrete enclosure.
So why is it good that the ANC destroyed them? Do you not that think that there are other ways to have your voice heard?
Oh and before you say, yes but they tried that but it didnt work, they built the toilets and the enclosures didnt they? The mayor himself came to oversee the operation, and got the agreement of the residents beforehand. That doesnt sound like he didnt give a *****.
Now, because I'm sure the mayor is a smart man, he probably realizes that the community is not to blame for the destruction, that the YL is, and so hopefully he will make an accommodation for these people. But surely you can see these simple facts - money was tight, what was left was spent on the enclosures, which have now been destroyed. No money left. So where do the new enclosures come from? Let me repeat, NO MONEY ANYMORE, thanks to the YL. Even if they wanted to help (which, as we know, they do) they dont have the money to, thanks again to the YL.
And what do you think will happen when a lucky few get brick enclosures while everyone else has to ***** in corrugated iron enclosures that they built themselves.