They brought a lot of good things with much less misery and ultimately improved the standards of life, somehow you want to overlook that fact due to your dishonest nature. Why do I feel like I'm a continuation of my ancestors? Why do Zulus have their traditions, revere and seek to live up to their ancestors? Why do Chinese? Why do Jews? It's not unique, in fact it's pretty commonplace. The difference is that due to the dominance in recent history of European civilizations, dishonest individuals such as yourself want to imply that Europeans don't have any reason to feel the same way. Guess what, when Europeans did all these things, they did so for their descendants, like me. Also, I'll counter your weak logic with a question of my own. If Europeans shouldn't consider the accomplishments of their ancestors as their own, which is a ridiculous notion in the first place, and their accomplishments have been merely cultural, therefore not genetically related, why is it that black Africans having occupied more minerally advantageous territories didn't produce the same level of civilization even in their slave empires set up to sell slaves to Mecca? I'm implying that there are inherent essences and qualities to a people, as is observed throughout history.
Secondly, since this point seems to be difficult for you to grasp having alluded to it in previous posts, how can I feel guilty for my ancestors having massively improved the lives of Southern Africans? To imply one should feel guilty, implies the idea that one subjugates himself to the idea that Europeans, one in-group, is inherently responsible for the existence of another, another in-group perceived by the previous one to be the out-group. In one of my previous posts I refer to the concept of nepotism, which is a concept within psychology and especially the branch known as evolutionary psychology. It's a psychological mechanism which became dominant in societies which thrived and overcame rivals, and as such is a highly effective natural behavior. If you look at Indians in silicon valley for instance, they utilize nepotism to elevate their perceived in-group to positions which they may not otherwise have been inline for, since there were qualified candidates within the country. But you can already appreciate the power of nepotism, and the natural implication thereof which leads to policies that are preferential towards one in-group and detrimental to another.
The point I'm trying to make is that nepotism, which includes all forms of discriminatory behavior including racism and sexism, occurs naturally within all peoples, why is it especially wrong for my particular in-group to have done the same thing that Indians do in silicon valley at the expense of other hardworking individuals? Or what the Chinese do, the exact same thing in any country they settle since it's both natural and effective? If we dishonestly look at this country through the lens of "one people", which is deluded, then the ANC have absolutely failed, but if you look at it through the lens of the ANC employing a form of nepotism where they put party and relatives before race (which is a second-layer priority which is why they have exclusionary policies towards whites) and country, then they've absolutely been massively successful since they've all become disproportionately rich and improved on their previous circumstances.
In nature not only is it counterintuitive to bend over backwards to accommodate and empower another group at the expense of yours, it's deeply unnatural. The egalitarian model of human relations that you seem to think is absolute, is merely a recent fad, and it's an idea which all non-Western civilizations have learned is a self-destructive one. I don't hate myself, nor do I want to destroy myself, therefore I don't adhere to self-destructive ideals. In order for me to feel guilty about another group, I would have to first consider it my responsibility to see to their wellbeing, a sentiment which is deeply unnatural and therefore I do not. So your question has been concisely answered.
So your supposed alternative is an example of a false dichotomy, unfortunately for you those aren't the only options available since the egalitarian model of of human relations isn't the only option to choose from. Get educated. And lastly, your point with regards to judging people on an individual basis is also only optional, as previously stated, perceived human groups have inherent qualities and essences, great individuals still arise out of collective, cultural frameworks, and culture, as exhibited by early African Christians and early European Christians, is primarily determined by the inherent nature of peoples. I can absolutely respect great individuals of any group, that doesn't mean we're part of the same group and that I should practice individualism, the same ideology which is so self-destructive and turning the rulers of the 19th and mid 20th century into the beggars of the future.
www.theguardian.com
apnews.com
en.wikipedia.org
Sign up with Google
