Angry protesters in Cape Town have confronted the king and queen of the Netherlands as they visited a museum that traces part of their country's 150-year involvement in slavery in South Africa.
The last time Europe “helped” Africans, it didn’t work out so well for us. Instead of helping us, they could just pay the nation back what they took + reparations. South Africa isn’t a classroom for beneficiaries of colonialism, it’s an active crime scene caused by them.
And as a white South African, I can assure you we aren’t in any danger. And collapsing again? When was the first time?
On the other hand, you’re right: it’s not a big deal. I give this take a 1/5.
White South Africans are literally European colonists. Like, I don’t mean that in a disparaging way, but in a literal sense. And not in a “We came by and integrated with the local people” sense, but a “We ended up as a privileged European caste in this country”.
I don’t know how much ‘us’ you can use with regards to the oppression of Black Africans by European colonists, since we’re apparently discussing collective and ancestral guilt.
Do you generally call paying back a debt ‘helping the collector’?
No, but that’s because debts are legal instruments. I don’t have any choice to pay back a debt, short of getting government goons on my ass. What’s more, debts (in the modern sense) are clearly defined and separate from ideas of guilt. This is more like a criminal wronging someone and seeking to later make amends when they see the consequences of their actions upon the victim, which I would regard as the criminal ‘helping’ the victim.
But more importantly, my identity is with the people I share a culture with. I’m first a South African, then a bunch of stuff, and one thing down the line is white.
You’re right that I’m the beneficiary of a racist system. The difference is that I have no issues with affirmative action or redress. You criticising me for being white and for decolonisation is like when people criticise Bernie Sanders for being rich and supporting higher taxes. It’s a stupid, reductive non-starter of an argument.
Now that my race is out of the way. My country has been looted by European countries, and it continues to be looted by extractive imperialism. Why can’t I ask them to pay us back? Where is the contradiction?
As for making amends = helping, most people would disagree. That’s a dumb assertion.
I think you may be mistaken as to the nature of ancestry, if you think Europeans are guilty for the crimes committed upon Black Africans but your ancestors are not.
But more importantly, my identity is with the people I share a culture with. I’m first a South African, then a bunch of stuff, and one thing down the line is white.
Is that privilege afforded to Europeans?
You’re right that I’m the beneficiary of a racist system. The difference is that I have no issues with affirmative action or redress. You criticising me for being white and for decolonisation is like when people criticise Bernie Sanders for being rich and supporting higher taxes. It’s a stupid, reductive non-starter of an argument.
My point isn’t that you’re ‘wrong’ for being for ‘decolonization’, my point is that this argument is predicated on the concept of ancestral guilt. It’s not that Pierre of France, scrubbing toilets in a dingy little restaurant, owes reparations to the countless nations that France has wronged in the past. Modern democratic governments are by and of their people - when demanding blood money from France, you are demanding blood money from Pierre. Insofar as Pierre has a higher standard of living and should assist others to reach his living status, I believe it is appropriate to demand money with that goal in mind. Insofar as the idea that Pierre, born in 1990 and who has never left his little corner of the country, has some form of ancestral debt to be paid, I believe it is inappropriate.
In other words, I think you are (broadly speaking) right, but for the wrong reasons.
As for making amends = helping, most people would disagree. That’s a dumb assertion.
I don’t think most people would disagree, but it’s semantics in the end.
Again with the guilt! This is a strawman. Can someone else tap in? I’m done for now.
Pug, if you’re really looking for answers, consider removing your moral glasses and just look at what people have had taken from them and what they’re asking for. Beyond all the emotion and defensiveness and outrage and morality, people are asking for really reasonable things
I find it absurd that you say that, considering that I have explicitly stated that I’m not against people asking for ‘really reasonable things’.
Insofar as Pierre has a higher standard of living and should assist others to reach his living status, I believe it is appropriate to demand money with that goal in mind. Insofar as the idea that Pierre, born in 1990 and who has never left his little corner of the country, has some form of ancestral debt to be paid, I believe it is inappropriate.
In other words, I think you are (broadly speaking) right, but for the wrong reasons.
You’re refusing to examine your own position when it is questioned, conflating opposition with your principle with opposition to your solution, despite the fact that it is the principle being questioned (the passing of guilt down through generations), not the solution (redistribution of wealth).
The last time Europe “helped” Africans, it didn’t work out so well for us. Instead of helping us, they could just pay the nation back what they took + reparations. South Africa isn’t a classroom for beneficiaries of colonialism, it’s an active crime scene caused by them.
And as a white South African, I can assure you we aren’t in any danger. And collapsing again? When was the first time?
On the other hand, you’re right: it’s not a big deal. I give this take a 1/5.
I can’t help but feel there’s a certain disconnect here.
… what is that if not help?
What’s the disconnect? Do you generally call paying back a debt ‘helping the collector’?
White South Africans are literally European colonists. Like, I don’t mean that in a disparaging way, but in a literal sense. And not in a “We came by and integrated with the local people” sense, but a “We ended up as a privileged European caste in this country”.
I don’t know how much ‘us’ you can use with regards to the oppression of Black Africans by European colonists, since we’re apparently discussing collective and ancestral guilt.
No, but that’s because debts are legal instruments. I don’t have any choice to pay back a debt, short of getting government goons on my ass. What’s more, debts (in the modern sense) are clearly defined and separate from ideas of guilt. This is more like a criminal wronging someone and seeking to later make amends when they see the consequences of their actions upon the victim, which I would regard as the criminal ‘helping’ the victim.
I’m not a European, so you’re wrong there bud.
But more importantly, my identity is with the people I share a culture with. I’m first a South African, then a bunch of stuff, and one thing down the line is white.
You’re right that I’m the beneficiary of a racist system. The difference is that I have no issues with affirmative action or redress. You criticising me for being white and for decolonisation is like when people criticise Bernie Sanders for being rich and supporting higher taxes. It’s a stupid, reductive non-starter of an argument.
Now that my race is out of the way. My country has been looted by European countries, and it continues to be looted by extractive imperialism. Why can’t I ask them to pay us back? Where is the contradiction?
As for making amends = helping, most people would disagree. That’s a dumb assertion.
I think you may be mistaken as to the nature of ancestry, if you think Europeans are guilty for the crimes committed upon Black Africans but your ancestors are not.
Is that privilege afforded to Europeans?
My point isn’t that you’re ‘wrong’ for being for ‘decolonization’, my point is that this argument is predicated on the concept of ancestral guilt. It’s not that Pierre of France, scrubbing toilets in a dingy little restaurant, owes reparations to the countless nations that France has wronged in the past. Modern democratic governments are by and of their people - when demanding blood money from France, you are demanding blood money from Pierre. Insofar as Pierre has a higher standard of living and should assist others to reach his living status, I believe it is appropriate to demand money with that goal in mind. Insofar as the idea that Pierre, born in 1990 and who has never left his little corner of the country, has some form of ancestral debt to be paid, I believe it is inappropriate.
In other words, I think you are (broadly speaking) right, but for the wrong reasons.
I don’t think most people would disagree, but it’s semantics in the end.
Again with the guilt! This is a strawman. Can someone else tap in? I’m done for now.
Pug, if you’re really looking for answers, consider removing your moral glasses and just look at what people have had taken from them and what they’re asking for. Beyond all the emotion and defensiveness and outrage and morality, people are asking for really reasonable things
I find it absurd that you say that, considering that I have explicitly stated that I’m not against people asking for ‘really reasonable things’.
You’re refusing to examine your own position when it is questioned, conflating opposition with your principle with opposition to your solution, despite the fact that it is the principle being questioned (the passing of guilt down through generations), not the solution (redistribution of wealth).