Has South Africa’s political right adopted the language and tactics of the woke left, or is Afrikaner self-protection something fundamentally different?
Reading this I felt like I was listening a very polished legal defence for holding onto privilege, rather than an honest look at our realities. You say AfriFrorum and Solidarity dont use wokeness to cancel or descredit other but to “protect” their own but when you have the finances to take every single transformation policy to court is a weapon. A court order is still as damaging as a twitter mob.
The “anyone can have their own Orania” shows a disconnect from our history. Orania sits on developed land and power grid built with the wealth that was generated by a system that actively excludes black people. The land yhat black people were forced onto (under apartheid) is barren and overcrowded. This argument ignore the 400 years of land dispossession.
When you say Afrikaners are “defending” their culture what they’re defending is their economic dominance.
Considering our South African history where the wounds of apartheid still bleeds into our daily inequality, the “rightwing” defensive isn’t defensive
It is the small contributions every month from hundreds of thousands of mostly working class Afrikaners which enables institutions like AfriForum and Solidariteit to take legal action. If those legal actions were against policies which really benefitted the broader population, of course it would have been questionable. But by now it is general knowledge that legislation is passed which in effect excludes the broader population and minority groups from improving their lot. Only a small inner circle of cadres are assisted in terms of such legislation, siphoning huge amounts of taxpayer money to them as the elite. Our general population remains poor and unemployed, being degraded by having access only to social grant handouts and not real developmental opportunities.
As far as the land is concerned, it has also been shown that the most fertile land in the country is mostly not where commercial farmers are to be found. Since you mentioned Orania, please check the geography. It is in many respects the least suitable for great development, yet the people there achieved miracles. You are welcome to compare that with the fertile land of the Eastern Cape an KZN, and you will realise that the people of Orania made something out of nothing. Nothing was given to them on a silver platter. In contrast, some of the other areas I referred to remain underdeveloped in spite of their abundance.
I don't think any true, traditional liberal should be either using the term "woke" or take it seriously. On the Right, from what I've seen over the last 50 years, it is the type of word they intend as an insult to describe anything they don't like—especially things they want to pretend didn't happen.
It is said those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, which is precisely what the Right wants—to go back and repeat history, especially that which gave them power over others. True liberalism has been fighting this sort of superiority complex for hundreds of years.
James, the only problem is that "wokeness" has become an issue. I also wish it away, but that will be ignoring the facts. "Wokeness" was weaponised on both sides of the spectrum, but the better idea is to rid the world of it, irrespective on which side it is being used.
My point is “wokeness” is anything others do that the anti-woke advocates don’t like. It has no objective definition. In that sense it is a phantom monster. Opposing it is like rounding up witches to be burned.
Reading this I felt like I was listening a very polished legal defence for holding onto privilege, rather than an honest look at our realities. You say AfriFrorum and Solidarity dont use wokeness to cancel or descredit other but to “protect” their own but when you have the finances to take every single transformation policy to court is a weapon. A court order is still as damaging as a twitter mob.
The “anyone can have their own Orania” shows a disconnect from our history. Orania sits on developed land and power grid built with the wealth that was generated by a system that actively excludes black people. The land yhat black people were forced onto (under apartheid) is barren and overcrowded. This argument ignore the 400 years of land dispossession.
When you say Afrikaners are “defending” their culture what they’re defending is their economic dominance.
Considering our South African history where the wounds of apartheid still bleeds into our daily inequality, the “rightwing” defensive isn’t defensive
Thanks for your reaction, Matsheole.
It is the small contributions every month from hundreds of thousands of mostly working class Afrikaners which enables institutions like AfriForum and Solidariteit to take legal action. If those legal actions were against policies which really benefitted the broader population, of course it would have been questionable. But by now it is general knowledge that legislation is passed which in effect excludes the broader population and minority groups from improving their lot. Only a small inner circle of cadres are assisted in terms of such legislation, siphoning huge amounts of taxpayer money to them as the elite. Our general population remains poor and unemployed, being degraded by having access only to social grant handouts and not real developmental opportunities.
As far as the land is concerned, it has also been shown that the most fertile land in the country is mostly not where commercial farmers are to be found. Since you mentioned Orania, please check the geography. It is in many respects the least suitable for great development, yet the people there achieved miracles. You are welcome to compare that with the fertile land of the Eastern Cape an KZN, and you will realise that the people of Orania made something out of nothing. Nothing was given to them on a silver platter. In contrast, some of the other areas I referred to remain underdeveloped in spite of their abundance.
I don't think any true, traditional liberal should be either using the term "woke" or take it seriously. On the Right, from what I've seen over the last 50 years, it is the type of word they intend as an insult to describe anything they don't like—especially things they want to pretend didn't happen.
It is said those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, which is precisely what the Right wants—to go back and repeat history, especially that which gave them power over others. True liberalism has been fighting this sort of superiority complex for hundreds of years.
James, the only problem is that "wokeness" has become an issue. I also wish it away, but that will be ignoring the facts. "Wokeness" was weaponised on both sides of the spectrum, but the better idea is to rid the world of it, irrespective on which side it is being used.
My point is “wokeness” is anything others do that the anti-woke advocates don’t like. It has no objective definition. In that sense it is a phantom monster. Opposing it is like rounding up witches to be burned.