No white's allowed...

[YoteFox]

At the risk of stirring shit I decided I needed to address this from my own perspective. Please keep this civil I know how politics can be ripped out of control so if you have a opinion please do not attack me for mine. Let's be adults here ^.^




This is the comment I left on the video:
I feel like Malema is just bark and no bite, he's power hungry as you said Renaldo. He'll do whatever makes him powerful and the sheep following his extremist ideals will be his rise to power his Nazi force. Being a white male in South Afica I'm often told that I'll be better off leaving the country, not just by blacks but by all races. This country and it's people has a idiotic fake vendetta against us white males for something I am sure the Government has managed to distort the truth with. The "land" Malema speaks about never belonged to anyone, South Africa was home to the Khoi-San. EVERYONE ELSE THAT LIVES IN SOUTH AFRICA CAME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE.

My grandparents were piss poor, my father was piss poor they barely survived in South Africa but my father without any form of what is called being white privilege worked his way to the top by actually working for what he wanted. He didn't have a tertiary education, he barely could afford going to high school but yet he managed to become a successful man because he worked for it and didn't expect to just receive it. Can you really take land from a man like that? That would be no better than what supposedly happened in the past and is being blamed on the white man. Two wrongs never made a right. Blacks aren't forced to live in the townships. Why don't you see white squatters? There are white squatters but look at it in a statistical point of view, obviously the majority will be seen more.

We have a over population problem in this country and we have too limited resources, blaming each other for what naturally happens is idiotic and counter productive. Stop listening to this extremist government and start standing together, you are being stupid sheep and the government is still doing you in. Townships are a result of the government because they make it too easy to squat, making it easier to squat and receive money from the government than actually working.
Malema is the voice of the stupid people bred by the government to hate others for the actions of the government itself. WAKE UP PEOPLE YOUR GOVERNMENT IS SCREWING YOU OVER AND BLAMING THE MINORITY! Malema is a puppet.
If you get mad about this comment I made you are one of the sheep bred by the government.
-END

It's a bit harsh but it's my viewpoint, please enlighten me with your opinion

[Galahad]

This is a topic that requires one to "walk on eggshells", as the saying goes. Nonetheless, controversy is a moderate portion of my diet, so I thought I would share my own perspective.

Debating about who is the right moral owner of the land is never-ending and circular, purely because of its highly subjective nature. Bias, one's background, one's political affiliation, one's state of mind, and so on conspire to make there be a variety of opinions on who rightfully owns the land, and there is no clear-cut, bias-free, objective standard against which to measure it in the realm of the subjective. For every "argument" about how one race should have the land, there is a counter-argument. "You whites stole the land from us!" "And you stole it from the Khoi-San!" "Then we can steal it back from you, and if the Khoi-San are strong enough, they can steal it from us!" It is just redundant, pathetic and unfruitful.

So, instead of arguing over to whom the land rightfully and morally belongs, instead focus on the present and maximizing efficiency. On the subject of land in this context, this could be measured in terms of food security, crop yields, marketing, and so on. In essence - put the most competent (irrespective of race and culture) at farming and working the land in charge of said land. In this way, the entire population benefits. Conversely, if the most incompetent is put in charge, then the population suffers. This is clearly seen in the case of Zimbabwe, where experienced farmers were forcefully evicted from their farms and these farms were instead given to the unskilled and inexperienced. The result? A catastrophic risk of starvation.

Of course, statistically, most of the most competent here in South Africa tend to be white, predominantly Afrikaans, farmers - due to their history and experience. As such, the less objective mind will view this racial disparity as something offensive, even racist. A possible solution, therefore, is to have a sort of apprenticeship program, where the most competent pass on their skills and experience, not only to their children or family, but also to those of their farm workers or those who wish to learn.

The longer we argue about race, Apartheid, history and who the land belongs to, the longer we delay a wholesome conversation about how we can make those willing to learn competent enough to take charge of the land and provide the population with foodstuffs and other goods so that as many people as possible will benefit.

[Leeward]

My grandparents were piss poor, my father was piss poor they barely survived in South Africa but my father without any form of what is called being white privilege worked his way to the top by actually working for what he wanted. He didn't have a tertiary education, he barely could afford going to high school but yet he managed to become a successful man because he worked for it and didn't expect to just receive it.

I think there's a huge misconception about what exactly "white privilege" means. White privilege doesn't (just) mean having familial wealth. It means the general attitude, prejudices and assumptions towards you.

Some examples:
White guy wandering around looking left and right and going in circles, you would probably assume he's lost; black guy, you'll immediately suspect he's scoping the place out to come back with his mates and rob it later. White woman in a position of authority, you might assume she got there through hard work, or possibly slept her way there, but you'll never think she's a useless BEE quota hire. Poor, downtrodden white family, they must be down on their luck or gotten screwed over by a lawsuit, or maybe their breadwinner is terminally ill. Destitute black family, it's their own fault for breeding like rabbits and not using contraceptives and they're lazy trash who would rather live off government welfare and crime than work.

See what I mean? Those assumptions stem from a perfectly rational observation: a divide in wealth, upbringing and culture, which justifies those observations from a statistical point of view. However, that divide is largely a direct consequence of having forced non-whites into second-class citizenship during apartheid. White privilege is both a vestige of having a divisive society, and an artefact of modern society that is perpetuated by racism and denial.

The sooner we can all acknowledge that life isn't fair, get over it, and make a positive change to improve all of our lives, the sooner racism will become a non-issue.

[Sev]

Except that racism is innate. And that applies to every race.

This was something that was covered in my neuropsychology course.

Racism is never going to dissappear, and anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. The best that we can hope for is that people just learn to live with each other.

[Leeward]

I didn't say it would disappear, only that it would become a non-issue. You can be a racist without being an asshole because of it. Same goes for being an aspie.

[Sev]

"Same goes for being an aspie"

Are you trying to say something?

[Leeward]

Me? No, nothing. Whatever gave you that silly idea?

[Sev]

The fact that you specifically brought up Aspergers in that context...

Especially considering what has been said in the past.

[Faanvolla]

I think Leeward said everything I would want to say better than I could've, so.
"This^ "

[Sev]

So you also think that I'm an asshole who uses Aspergers as an excuse?

[Franky]

All this tldr.

[Sev]

White Power Suspension

[Cape_F0X]

What if you're tan?

[Galahad]

"White privilege" began on the fairly accurate premise that whites tend to occupy more stable and reputable positions in society and have larger incomes, but then became little more than a thinly-veiled way of silencing whites from voicing opposing opinions. At least, on the platforms of debate I have seen.

To me, "white privilege" is a sweeping generalization that ignores individual circumstance as well as scenarios in which being white could in itself be dangerous or encourage discrimination. The recent university protests serve as evidence of this, such as when a WhatsApp voice note circulated among Wits undergraduates that stated that at least one white must be killed for their demands to be taken seriously. (Source)

It is true - society has favoured certain races above others. However, labelling all individuals under one banner on the basis of skin colour and then using said banner to encourage guilt or silence dissenting opinion is textbook racism. For there to be some sort of equality and reconciliation, everyone must come to the table and participate, even if their opinions are diverse. Most whites may be "privileged", as you call it, but using that trend - not universal law - as a means to inspire guilt or silence will only divide further. So, instead, come together as equals instead of painting labels on groups and sides.

[YoteFox]

All this tldr.

Oom Franky! I knew you were going to do something like this xD I was just waiting for it.

My grandparents were piss poor, my father was piss poor they barely survived in South Africa but my father without any form of what is called being white privilege worked his way to the top by actually working for what he wanted. He didn't have a tertiary education, he barely could afford going to high school but yet he managed to become a successful man because he worked for it and didn't expect to just receive it.

I think there's a huge misconception about what exactly "white privilege" means. White privilege doesn't (just) mean having familial wealth. It means the general attitude, prejudices and assumptions towards you.

Some examples:
White guy wandering around looking left and right and going in circles, you would probably assume he's lost; black guy, you'll immediately suspect he's scoping the place out to come back with his mates and rob it later. White woman in a position of authority, you might assume she got there through hard work, or possibly slept her way there, but you'll never think she's a useless BEE quota hire. Poor, downtrodden white family, they must be down on their luck or gotten screwed over by a lawsuit, or maybe their breadwinner is terminally ill. Destitute black family, it's their own fault for breeding like rabbits and not using contraceptives and they're lazy trash who would rather live off government welfare and crime than work.

See what I mean? Those assumptions stem from a perfectly rational observation: a divide in wealth, upbringing and culture, which justifies those observations from a statistical point of view. However, that divide is largely a direct consequence of having forced non-whites into second-class citizenship during apartheid. White privilege is both a vestige of having a divisive society, and an artefact of modern society that is perpetuated by racism and denial.

The sooner we can all acknowledge that life isn't fair, get over it, and make a positive change to improve all of our lives, the sooner racism will become a non-issue.

Thanks Lee this is why I posted this Topic because obviously I don't understand some of the topics and these things were drilled into my head as a kid by school and other places... But yes I was thinking of that aspect as well after I posted this thread, I just wanted to see if someone would actually bring it up and the person I actually anticipated to did lol

This is a topic that requires one to "walk on eggshells", as the saying goes. Nonetheless, controversy is a moderate portion of my diet, so I thought I would share my own perspective.

Debating about who is the right moral owner of the land is never-ending and circular, purely because of its highly subjective nature. Bias, one's background, one's political affiliation, one's state of mind, and so on conspire to make there be a variety of opinions on who rightfully owns the land, and there is no clear-cut, bias-free, objective standard against which to measure it in the realm of the subjective. For every "argument" about how one race should have the land, there is a counter-argument. "You whites stole the land from us!" "And you stole it from the Khoi-San!" "Then we can steal it back from you, and if the Khoi-San are strong enough, they can steal it from us!" It is just redundant, pathetic and unfruitful.

So, instead of arguing over to whom the land rightfully and morally belongs, instead focus on the present and maximizing efficiency. On the subject of land in this context, this could be measured in terms of food security, crop yields, marketing, and so on. In essence - put the most competent (irrespective of race and culture) at farming and working the land in charge of said land. In this way, the entire population benefits. Conversely, if the most incompetent is put in charge, then the population suffers. This is clearly seen in the case of Zimbabwe, where experienced farmers were forcefully evicted from their farms and these farms were instead given to the unskilled and inexperienced. The result? A catastrophic risk of starvation.

Of course, statistically, most of the most competent here in South Africa tend to be white, predominantly Afrikaans, farmers - due to their history and experience. As such, the less objective mind will view this racial disparity as something offensive, even racist. A possible solution, therefore, is to have a sort of apprenticeship program, where the most competent pass on their skills and experience, not only to their children or family, but also to those of their farm workers or those who wish to learn.

The longer we argue about race, Apartheid, history and who the land belongs to, the longer we delay a wholesome conversation about how we can make those willing to learn competent enough to take charge of the land and provide the population with foodstuffs and other goods so that as many people as possible will benefit.

This is the truth, but the scary fact about this is and it's evident from the comments on that video is that the extremist racist ideals are so deeply embedded in some of the sheeps minds that this view will never change and there will always be this form of racial hate leading to people being dicks about it. The government controls the sheep better than they think, keeping the pass rates low and the people too dumb to realise what is in actual fact happening. The government is for itself and it uses the people by walking all over them. Same with the EFF and Malema, what happens when he rises to fame, he gets money and he won't care about the people of the country anymore.

The land debate is just a distraction from the truth, so is racial hate it's all just propaganda set out by the government to make us hate each other and not see how deep the government is fucking it's people. Maybe this is what Malema is trying to portray but he sure as hell fell very hard for the race card then. Blaming apartheid and the white man has always been an excuse. I'm not a racist in the slightest, sure I've made racial jokes but jokes are jokes I'm facetious like that.

I'm sounding like one of those hippies who says the MAN IS GONNA GET YOU DOWN... I'm not xD I've come to realise what power the government truly yields over its people, it uses people like disposable condoms (Note all condoms are disposable). This hippie stereotype is exactly why people avoid thinking this way. Maybe another way for the government to control all of it's sheep.

[Leeward]

I think Leeward said everything I would want to say better than I could've, so.
"This^ "

So you also think that I'm an asshole who uses Aspergers as an excuse?

No you clot, the part about white privilege. Defensive much.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Sev, Leeward, if you have issues with each other then talk about that in PMs not in other threads.

[Sev]

I think Leeward said everything I would want to say better than I could've, so.
"This^ "

So you also think that I'm an asshole who uses Aspergers as an excuse?

No you clot, the part about white privilege. Defensive much.

Well, forgive me for being caught off guard by your not so subtle message.

And that is the most disingenuous emoticon ever...

[Rakuen Growlithe]

I've removed all the unnecessary personal attacks. Keep it on topic and try to resolve differences in PMs, not through sarcastic barbs.

[Leeward]

Woah now hey, that's blatant censorship. The part about being a racist and being an asshole not being mutually inclusive was very much on topic. It's not my fault Sev took my analogy personally.

[Sudan Red]

But why do (good/bad) stereotypes exist if they are arguably not(?) applicable to the majority of a group being stereotyped? Stereotypes must come from some observation or truth even if they are then wrongly attributed to the whole group. Does it also rely on the period when the stereotype first took hold & that certain stereotypes are still perpetuated even though they are no longer relevant? Does anyone have info on this?

[Leeward]

Ecological fallacy, perhaps? Also stereotypes make for good joke material even when false. For example, Napoleon wasn't actually short (he was actually taller than the average for that era), the misconception came from a confusion between English and French units of measurements combined with English political satire cartoons of the time depicting him as such.

[Insert something that could be misconstrued as an insult here so the whole post gets CENSORED because playing nice is apparently more important than making good points.]

[Obsidian]

I am of the opinion that if there is no law creating a privileged group then there is no problem. People will be horrible to each other regardless, we don't need to stoke the flames more with resentment

[Franky]

I am of the opinion that if there is no law creating a privileged group then there is no problem. People will be horrible to each other regardless, we don't need to stoke the flames more with resentment

Is too bad that the real world doesn't work this way.

[Galahad]

But why do (good/bad) stereotypes exist if they are arguably not(?) applicable to the majority of a group being stereotyped? Stereotypes must come from some observation or truth even if they are then wrongly attributed to the whole group. Does it also rely on the period when the stereotype first took hold & that certain stereotypes are still perpetuated even though they are no longer relevant? Does anyone have info on this?

That is true - most stereotypes are derived from a kernel of truth. Nonetheless, in any debate where objectivity is key, stereotypes alone are very dangerous. Unless you have statistics and sound reasoning drawn from those statistics, a stereotype is just one big assumption and generalization. And it is for this reason that "white privilege" as a stereotype is weak. Not entirely false, but weak, and better off left unused.

LONG VERSION:

For example, BusinessTech quoted a study of income of race groups from 2003 to 2012. True to the stereotype, whites had and have the highest mean and median salary (both in 2003 and 2012), and blacks have the lowest of both. Now, just from that, one could use it as "proof" that whites are "privileged"... but not so fast. Take a closer look at the statistics, and do some extrapolation. In that nine-year period, whites experienced the smallest growth of income (7% increase in mean), whereas Indians/Asians and "coloureds" experienced the largest (60% increase in mean). Even in absolute values, the increase in mean of two non-white groups ("coloureds" and Asians/Indians) exceeds that of whites.

Furthermore, notice the difference between the means and medians of the race groups (the medians tend to be higher than the means) - for Asians/Indians, that difference decreases across the 9-year period, whereas for the rest it increases. When a mean is notably lower than the median, it suggests that the data is skewed: in this case, it means that for Asians/Indians the income of the poor increased faster than that of the rich, whereas for the rest the income of the rich increased faster than that of the poor.

So what does that mean? (Pun intended ) Firstly, that there is a small but significant divide between rich and poor whites. And the latter does indeed exist. Secondly, that at least one group of non-whites (Asians/Indians) are stabilizing (increase in growth of income as well as growth of income for the poor). The statistics show that blacks are still suffering the most from poverty - that is a fact. However, I am talking about "white privilege", not "under-privilege" of blacks. If even one non-white group experiences a consistent and significant favourable economic increase that whites do not, it detracts from the notion of "white privilege".

So, to summarize: the divide between whites and non-whites, as well as the rich and poor in at least one non-white group, is gradually shrinking with each year. And with it, so is the solidity of the whole "white privilege" argument, or at least its economic component.

TL;DR VERSION:

Average-income and poor-income whites significantly outnumber high-income whites - there is a range. From 2003 to 2012, this difference increased: the rich got richer, whilst the poor did not experience as much of a rise.
The median and mean income of all non-white groups increased at a greater rate than that of whites. For one non-white group (Asians/Indians), the poor are now experiencing a greater increase in income.
In essence, non-whites are attaining higher and more reputable positions in society. As such, "white privilege" - or at least its economic component - is losing credibility with each passing year, should this trend continue.

EVEN MORE TL;DR VERSION:
Non-whites are starting to make more money, at a bigger rate than that of whites (at least between 2003 and 2012). The gap is shrinking. So, economically, "white privilege" is shrinking with it.

[Sev]

I am of the opinion that if there is no law creating a privileged group then there is no problem. People will be horrible to each other regardless, we don't need to stoke the flames more with resentment

I too agree with this. And trying to correct the past by recreating its inverse does nothing but sow division and resentment.

[Faanvolla]

[...]
EVEN MORE TL;DR VERSION:
Non-whites are starting to make more money, at a bigger rate than that of whites (at least between 2003 and 2012). The gap is shrinking. So, economically, "white privilege" is shrinking with it.

Very well put/researched post.

For my own pure speculation , and because I couldn't really find any info about this googling:
I wonder how much the BEE program and similar helped with this. When companies were forced to start also employing non-whites, did that have a substantial increase in this, or was it mostly because of non segregation that people's lives and education/work levels became better?
And could it be that because the more-rich white people then might already own businesses or be 'higher ups', so they can employ their own children/family or have contacts at other businesses to put a good word/ recommendation in, that the rich ones don't have a problem staying that way/increasing their wealth, where the then poor white people now don't get the BEE-help, they are less likely to get jobs/promotions compared to similar 'level' (education, work, and class(must be a better word I can't think the english of. standing?)) non-white people. So that means that they might stay in the same 'wealth group' while others move up.

Again my own pure speculation

[Sudan Red]

@Galahad
WOW! Impressive post! Thanks for a well thought-out & researched answer to my question. I reckon your answer is somewhat incorporated into my response to Faanvolla below.

@FaanVolla
My opinion on BEE is that it doesn't help the dirt poor people. It's main aim seems to be to solidify & slowly expand a pre-existing black middle class. Any job that would actually be affected by BEE is reserved for folks with a certain level of education, which sadly is still limited to those that can afford it (ie middle class or very lucky bursary recipients). Jobs that "dirt poor" people are qualified(?!) to do are more often than not NOT subjected to BEE stipulations. So as a social/economic upliftment tool, it is doing a very poor job of reaching the poorest among us. As you also rightly point out, there seems to be an element of "laertrek" (rounding the wagons) among very conservative white business owners due to discrimination (whether real or perceived) which further excludes any BEE from being practically achievable.

[Leeward]

I don't mean to sidetrack this very interesting debate, but is everyone going to completely ignore the fact that Rakuen is acting as self-appointed minister of truth here? Or am I the only one who finds it appalling on principle?

[Galahad]

I don't mean to sidetrack this very interesting debate, but is everyone going to completely ignore the fact that Rakuen is acting as self-appointed minister of truth here? Or am I the only one who finds it appalling on principle?

I am afraid I am not able to read what he deleted... for obvious reasons. What I do remember is that you and Sev were having an off-topic talk about Asperger's and post interpretations. If that specific portion was removed, then I believe it is at least partially justifiable. If parts of the on-topic debate were removed with it (as you say there were), then I am against it.