"Whiteness burning": UCT Students are throwing “colonial” art on the pyre. Forgot College education
442 replies, posted
[QUOTE=srobins;49780413]lol, easy to say from a swivel chair in your bedroom. Meanwhile white people in South Africa are even more fucked than before because they have to deal with roaming gangs of moron students destroying the city and blaming white people for all their problems. You'd probably be a bit less understanding if you were a white guy trying to walk to work in a city full of people that hate you.[/QUOTE]
Oh, definitely. But I can't imagine south africa is a good place for white people to live, anyway. They have the racist assholes who ran government for so long to thank for that.
[QUOTE=archangel125;49780420]Oh, definitely. But I can't imagine south africa is a good place for white people to live, anyway. They have the racist assholes who ran government for so long to thank for that.[/QUOTE]
So then why be an apologist for this behavior? Why do you just passively accept people destroying history and art and marching about screaming and spray-painting "fuck white people"?
[QUOTE=Govna;49780419]This. So much. Can't tell you how many times I've thought the exact same thing.
"But" nothing. This is not acceptable behavior. It's that fucking simple: the sins of the ancestors do not carry on down to their children, burning and destroying shit and behaving like a bunch of goddamn savages calling for the death and destruction of a race of people is not going to be tolerated and should not be tolerated under these ridiculous circumstances, and that's all there is to it. If you want to act like animals, go do it somewhere else-- and moreover, stop destroying things that don't belong to you for no reason at all.[/QUOTE]
"But" is an absolutely fair thing to say. It's important to provide context for a decision, because otherwise you've dehumanized the scenario and deluded yourself into thinking there isn't depth to a situation. It's like saying, "Black people killed white people" instead of saying, "Slave owners tortured and killed their slaves, but some black people killed white people." If you wanted to be black and white about the situation, you would have deluded yourself into thinking black people were the problem in that initial sentence.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49780433]"But" is an absolutely fair thing to say. It's important to provide context for a decision, because otherwise you've dehumanized the scenario and deluded yourself into thinking there isn't depth to a situation. It's like saying, "Black people killed white people" instead of saying, "Slave owners tortured and killed their slaves, but some black people killed white people." If you wanted to be black and white about the situation, you would have deluded yourself into thinking black people were the problem in that initial sentence.[/QUOTE]
Am I the only one that can't even begin to parse out what this post is supposed to mean? I really genuinely do not understand the point you're making, I think you need a better analogy than "black people killed white people" to get your point across here..
[QUOTE=archangel125;49780405]Ancestors? It was their freaking parents.[/QUOTE]
Well maybe they should leave the burning and vandalism to their parents then?
[QUOTE=archangel125;49780405]Ancestors? It was their freaking parents.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Noun
ancestor ‎(plural ancestors)
One from whom a person is descended, whether on the father's or mother's side, at any distance of time; a progenitor; a forefather.[/QUOTE]
Parents would fit under the term?
[QUOTE=archangel125;49780296]Whites colonize Africa, ship loads of the people there overseas to be slaves, then settle in the south of it and oppress the rest for generation upon generation, ending just in 1994 - 22 years ago.
You expect the people are going to be totally cool today? No hard feelings, bro, it was just a prank?
Get real.
Nobody's supporting the nonsense that's going on over there. But we've got right to judge it, either.
Apartheid was an African word that entered the English lexicon BECAUSE of the bullshit that was going on there.[/QUOTE]
I think I do have a fucking right to judge it when my university is closed down more than twice in a month. I'm paying out my ass to get an education and I have just as much a right to be there as anybody else. I'm a first generation immigrant, my parents were halfway across the world during Apartheid, what fucking sins do I have to bear? A friend of mine got beat up by 4 black guys on Thursday for daring to be white and he's not even an Afrikaaner. A different friend had a chair thrown at him because he didn't want to leave his lecture. You think I don't have a right to judge that? It's fucking easy to say that from 14000km away when this doesn't affect you in any way at all but I want to get an education and leave this shithole. You think it isn't a problem that [I]hundreds[/I] of people that aren't even students storm the university and break into lectures, throw them out and beat them up, run around singing chants and throw trash at people? Get real
And Apartheid isn't even an African word, dumbass
[QUOTE=srobins;49780428]So then why be an apologist for this behavior? Why do you just passively accept people destroying history and art and marching about screaming and spray-painting "fuck white people"?[/QUOTE]
Do you believe in right and wrong? I don't. You can look at their situation, why they're doing, and show sympathy and condemnation at the same time. I do this regularly with the scum of the earth. There's an unfortunate rhyme and reason to a lot of things, and there's a rhyme and reason to this hate. Sure, it's still blatant racism, but it's racism with a cause. It's a defense mechanism. It's the rape victim's response to the entire gender of the person who raped them.
[QUOTE=archangel125;49780405]Ancestors? It was their freaking parents.[/QUOTE]
Ancestors means the ones before them, including their parents, it's not defining ancient people alone lol
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49780433]"But" is an absolutely fair thing to say. It's important to provide context for a decision, because otherwise you've dehumanized the scenario and deluded yourself into thinking there isn't depth to a situation. It's like saying, "Black people killed white people" instead of saying, "Slave owners tortured and killed their slaves, but some black people killed white people." If you wanted to be black and white about the situation, you would have deluded yourself into thinking black people were the problem in that initial sentence.[/QUOTE]
American people killed Muslim people, but Muslim people attacked innocent American people with no warning during peacetime and killed thousands.
Therefore, it's okay for us to go and kill thousands of innocent Muslims because they did the same thing to us.
Congratulations, you're using the same logic as right-wing lunatics.
[QUOTE=archangel125;49780296]
You expect the people are going to be totally cool today? No hard feelings, bro, it was just a prank?
[/QUOTE]
I'll use the Rwandan genocide so that we don't have any of the double standards or biases that come up whenever white people are involved. The Tutsi faced horrible discrimination and an act of genocide. Do we create a harmonious society by having the Tutsi always hold a grudge and even go on to oppress and brutalize the ones that oppressed them?
[QUOTE=archangel125;49780420]Oh, definitely. But I can't imagine south africa is a good place for white people to live..[/QUOTE]
and you're fine with this? Black people in South Africa are getting more violent towards the white minority and destroying their culture in the form of burning it. Thats really ok? Not a fan of Nelson Mandela myself but didn't he preach reconciliation?
[editline]20th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=archangel125;49780405]Ancestors? It was their freaking parents.[/QUOTE]
Take it literally then. The sins of the father do not pass onto the son.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49780433]"But" is an absolutely fair thing to say. It's important to provide context for a decision, because otherwise you've dehumanized the scenario and deluded yourself into thinking there isn't depth to a situation. It's like saying, "Black people killed white people" instead of saying, "Slave owners tortured and killed their slaves, but some black people killed white people." If you wanted to be black and white about the situation, you would have deluded yourself into thinking black people were the problem in that initial sentence.[/QUOTE]
Book burning is bad "but" [insert reason to burn books here] is not "humanizing the scenario". It is a feeble attempt to deflect flack while either being for it or apathetic to it.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49780449]Do you believe in right and wrong? I don't.[/QUOTE]
That's a very naive faux-progressive way to look at the world. Sure, there's no universal law that defines right and wrong, but I'd say unabashed racism and destruction of history by a bunch of students looking for something to be upset about 22 years after-the-fact is most definitely wrong. No amount of overly verbose blame-shifting is going to change that. You can justify it all you want, you can sympathize with it and understand it, but at the end of the day it's blatant racism and most definitely [I]wrong[/I]. Just because white people are the victims doesn't mean it magically becomes okay despite what you've convinced yourself.
[QUOTE=srobins;49780438]Am I the only one that can't even begin to parse out what this post is supposed to mean? I really genuinely do not understand the point you're making, I think you need a better analogy than "black people killed white people" to get your point across here..[/QUOTE]
If you leave context out of your declaration, things can seem more sinister than they actually are. I want the full story instead of the black and white statement.
I fucked up with my original post because I messed up the format of the sentence. I thought you guys were saying "<context>, but <opinion>". I had it in reverse. Here's my revised example: "Some black people killed white people, but those white people were generally slave owners who killed tons of black people." If I left it at just "Some black people killed white people", and no context, it sounds way worse and unfair. Murder is awful, after all. Your distaste for people using the word "but" would force you to read this example as straight up murder, and murder without context will always sound bad.
Black and white statements are generally actions, i.e. "Black people are rioting in Ferguson". If I left it at that, a lot of people would be up in arms, saying, "What awful people!" But if I then appended "but it's because black people are upset with the injustices of police offers, especially because of the Micheal Brown controversy", then it becomes something that can gain sympathy and add necessary depth in understanding the situation, disabling the ability to give a 100% definite declaration of whether or not it's justified or not.
[editline]20th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=froztshock;49780456]American people killed Muslim people, but Muslim people attacked innocent American people with no warning during peacetime and killed thousands.
Therefore, it's okay for us to go and kill thousands of innocent Muslims because they did the same thing to us.
Congratulations, you're using the same logic as right-wing lunatics.[/QUOTE]
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying "it's complicated". You're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that [I]both[/I] sides need analysis and need to have their shit fixed, and that it's generally unfair to say one side is 100% wrong.
[editline]20th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Thlis;49780461]Book burning is bad "but" [insert reason to burn books here] is not "humanizing the scenario". It is a feeble attempt to deflect flack while either being for it or apathetic to it.[/QUOTE]
No, it's providing the means to provide enough sympathy to figure out a way to defuse the situation without throwing your conceptual enemies into the trash compactor. It also encourages self-reflection.
[QUOTE=proch;49779348]Whites are awful, and their rule is terrible. Just look at how awful rhodesia was before it became zimbabwe[/QUOTE]
You are Polish. You are white, and thus you are awful. Your rule is terrible. Look at how you, white person, made Rhodesia an awful place. You, personally, are responsible as are all white people. Now please hand over all your money and valuables to the non-whites who deserve it because you can't handle it and because you, personally, mistreated them.
[QUOTE]"But" is an absolutely fair thing to say. It's important to provide context for a decision, because otherwise you've dehumanized the scenario and deluded yourself into thinking there isn't depth to a situation. It's like saying, "Black people killed white people" instead of saying, "Slave owners tortured and killed their slaves, but some black people killed white people." If you wanted to be black and white about the situation, you would have deluded yourself into thinking black people were the problem in that initial sentence. [/QUOTE]
No. It's that simple. I am in no way responsible for what other members of my race do. We could use the same logic you're preaching to justify white supremacy if we really wanted to.
In your proposed scenario, there is no depth beyond black person killed white person. That is what happened, and is what the courts should consider - they should not give the black person a lighter punishment because a white person historically mistreated a black person.
It astounds me how this thread has brought anti-white racists out of the woodwork. You who complain about the far right realize that the far right is entirely your own creation, that the narrative of white = bad disenfranchises whites and fuels extremist views.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49780479]"Some black people killed white people, but those white people were generally slave owners who killed tons of black people." If I left it at just "Some black people killed white people", and no context, it sounds way worse and unfair. Murder is awful, after all. Your distaste for people using the word "but" would force you to read this example as straight up murder, and murder without context will always sound bad.[/QUOTE]
You're grossly misrepresenting the context of what is actually happening in this thread though, so your point is completely meaningless. None of the people being affected by these riots were even involved in apartheid, they're just students who want to get an education. In fact, we have a poster from South Africa here in this thread to attest to that. Maybe if the people rioting in the streets were actually targeting people that actively ruined their lives this would be more understandable, but a bunch of mongoloids running about the streets, interrupting lectures, burning art and being openly racist against white people just because they're unlucky enough to have the same skin color as people who did bad things 20+ years ago is entirely unjustifiable. I know you desperately want to give them the benefit of the doubt and pretend that through some extravagant mental gymnastics, racism against whites is justified somehow, someway, because something something history, but it isn't. It's the exact same logic as a white supremacist who feels justified in his hate for black people because he got mugged by 3 black guys when he was a kid. Does he have a reason for his feelings? Sure, but he's still a fucking idiot.
[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49780497]You are Polish. You are white, and thus you are awful. Your rule is terrible. Look at how you, white person, made Rhodesia an awful place. You, personally, are responsible as are all white people. Now please hand over all your money and valuables to the non-whites who deserve it because you can't handle it and because you, personally, mistreated them.
No. It's that simple. I am in no way responsible for what other members of my race do. We could use the same logic you're preaching to justify white supremacy if we really wanted to.
In your proposed scenario, there is no depth beyond black person killed white person. That is what happened, and is what the courts should consider - they should not give the black person a lighter punishment because a white person historically mistreated a black person.
It astounds me how this thread has brought anti-white racists out of the woodwork. You who complain about the far right realize that the far right is entirely your own creation, that the narrative of white = bad disenfranchises whites and fuels extremist views.[/QUOTE]
Did I ever say that these people weren't in the wrong? They're absolutely in the wrong. I'm not talking on an individual basis, but a group basis. If people wanted to stop at, "these black people are nuts", that's where my beef comes in. That's when the complete dismissal of possible intentions come in. Sure, there's probably a lot of them that are protesting just to protest and feel superiority. But there's also probably underlying reasons for that and others. And the more you want to dismiss the entire situation, the more shit like this will continue, reverberating louder and louder each time.
[editline]20th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=srobins;49780507]You're grossly misrepresenting the context of what is actually happening in this thread though, so your point is completely meaningless. None of the people being affected by these riots were even involved in apartheid, they're just students who want to get an education. In fact, we have a poster from South Africa here in this thread to attest to that. Maybe if the people rioting in the streets were actually targeting people that actively ruined their lives this would be more understandable, but a bunch of mongoloids running about the streets, interrupting lectures, burning art and being openly racist against white people just because they're unlucky enough to have the same skin color as people who did bad things 20+ years ago is entirely unjustifiable. I know you desperately want to give them the benefit of the doubt and pretend that through some extravagant mental gymnastics, racism against whites is justified somehow, someway, because something something history, but it isn't. It's the exact same logic as a white supremacist who feels justified in his hate for black people because he got mugged by 3 black guys when he was a kid. Does he have a reason for his feelings? Sure, but he's still a fucking idiot.[/QUOTE]
So you've figured out that these people are protesting to protest. [I]What next[/I]? If you leave it at that, there is no solution. If you choose to investigate and figure out if there are ways to address their concerns and will to protest, then that's where solutions come about. That requires careful insight that doesn't just demonize them from the get go.
[editline]20th February 2016[/editline]
I'm tired of the "you're with us or against" us of this thread. If I'm not bashing these people with only the strongest of blows to the face, then I'm an apologist for racism. Great.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49780509]So you've figured out that these people are protesting to protest. [I]What next[/I]? If you leave it at that, there is no solution. If you choose to investigate and figure out if there are ways to address their concerns and will to protest, then that's where solutions come about. That requires careful insight that doesn't just demonize them from the get go.[/QUOTE]
Arrest those involved in illegal activities like destruction of property and incitation of violence and address whatever concerns they have that are reasonable. End of. There's no need to pretend you have some unique intellectual stance where anything they're doing is justified, because it isn't.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49780418]I've got a question.
A lot of people defended the confederate flag, saying that it was an important piece of history, and wasn't inherently racist. The civilization of the confederates, however, was built on the black of slaves and was often depicted all over the confederate-supporting states with some sort of glorification of the past. If a lot of angry black people were to destroy all of these things, I wouldn't really give a shit and feel some sympathy. It's not simply being remembered that point, it's being [I]missed[/I], and that's bullshit that seeps into people's mentality and treatment of black people.
Now, let's not make a 1:1 comparison. In fact, that's the question I have to make: how much of this can be compared with my first scenario? Were these glorifications of the past without context? Sure, there was apparently great stuff that got caught in the crossfire, but was there stuff that loomed over these people every day as a burning reminder of the authority that did so much harm while also being pinned up as a great mind of history?
I don't feel so set on this because I don't know the full story. It was mentioned previously in the thread but I don't think it was discussed to the fullest extent. I will say I don't think that the protesters were completely justified or unjustified, but there's nothing in this world but grey areas.[/QUOTE]
I never defended the Confederate flag or Confederate monuments, but my arguments against them had very little to do with slavery and more to do with the fact that the Confederacy was a treasonous entity that tried to undo the United States through secession and war-- leading to the bloodiest conflict in American history that claimed more than 600,000 peoples' lives-- for no other reason than because they were trying to hold desperately onto a dying way of life that revolved around maintaining their plantation systems and the southern economy on the backs of working human beings that were treated no better than animals and regarded as bought-and-paid-for property that could be done with however their owners pleased. The slavery part was unacceptable of course and deserves mention as a reason against glorifying them and what they fought for (which was states' rights... concerning slaves and slavery), but the bigger thing that overshadows that atrocity to me is that they were willing to split the Union, making themselves traitors, and engage to the bitter end in a war that never should have happened and that pointlessly claimed hundreds of thousands of lives... all because they, again, were trying to hold onto a dying way of life and economics that could not have feasibly lasted much longer against modernization, industrialization, and the rise of humanitarianism/racial egalitarianism.
That, and otherwise it just serves as nothing but a ridiculous historical entity that a bunch of tryhards and wannabe rebels like to glorify and pretend was some kind of great cause for change in the United States. And those people enrage me for being so fucking pitifully stupid. As far as the destruction of Confederate symbols is concerned, there's a difference between glorifying the past/memorializing it and doing nothing more than remembering that it happened.
South Africa's history is different from the Southern United States'; having said that however, this "whiteness burning" isn't targeting the images of people who did anything wrong. They burned a portrait of one of the first women ever to attend UCT, PM Jan Smuts (who although he did support segregation later moved for integration, which is sensible rather than immediately having a policy of "everybody's equal, everybody will work together now"; that's too abrupt and not a feasible way to address long-term problems by trying to reduce them to short-term ones), burned some artist's painting that was against apartheid... etc. This isn't a political statement, there's nothing honorable going on here; it's just a bunch of retarded, violent animals running out and behaving like retarded, violent animals: destroying what they can get their hands on, yelling and hollering, and trying to hide behind a cover of "we're fighting against racism" (because lord knows that in this day and age, accusations of racism can be used as a weapon against people we don't like as much as it can be used as a shield to hide behind-- because, after all, if we claim we're behaving in an anti-racist context and you're not with us, clearly then you must be a racist... even if you're not, we'll just spin you as one and do whatever we can to get our way like spoiled children).
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49780509]Did I ever say that these people weren't in the wrong? They're absolutely in the wrong. I'm not talking on an individual basis, but a group basis. If people wanted to stop at, "these black people are nuts", that's where my beef comes in. That's when the complete dismissal of possible intentions come in. Sure, there's probably a lot of them that are protesting just to protest and feel superiority. But there's also probably underlying reasons for that and others. And the more you want to dismiss the entire situation, the more shit like this will continue, reverberating louder and louder each time.[/QUOTE]
You're saying that they aren't entirely wrong, because some other white people mistreated some other black people centuries ago. You're saying that white murderers should face harsher punishment than black murderers.
The legal system is not supposed to work that way. A judge should not see black person or white person or any historical misdeed. The judge should see person killed person. He should give no consideration, none at all, to race or to historic context. Giving preferential treatment to one racial group while discriminating against others is racism, plain and simple.
[QUOTE=srobins;49780531]Arrest those involved in illegal activities like destruction of property and incitation of violence and address whatever concerns they have that are reasonable. End of. There's no need to pretend you have some unique intellectual stance where anything they're doing is justified, because it isn't.[/QUOTE]
That's literally my stance, though. Arrest the people involved and [B]address their concerns[/B]. Consider what is being placed throughout the university, consider how the lessons are being taught, consider sensitivity, consider if things are accidentally being endorsed (if not flat out endorsed), and move on. That last part is arguably the most important, though. If you all you do is take and never give, they're not going to view you as caring, and this shit will repeat.
[editline]20th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Govna;49780543]I never defended the Confederate flag or Confederate monuments[/QUOTE]
Before I read this: Sorry, I didn't mean to reference your defense of the confederate flag. I was speaking generally.
I can't believe there is anything worth arguing here.
Book/culture burning of things you disapprove of is and always was a symbol of high ignorance for a reason. You're fucking revolting if you think otherwise.
[QUOTE=srobins;49780438]Am I the only one that can't even begin to parse out what this post is supposed to mean? I really genuinely do not understand the point you're making, I think you need a better analogy than "black people killed white people" to get your point across here..[/QUOTE]
It doesn't mean anything. He's talking like a politician: talking without actually saying anything In the context of what's happening, these people are not making a valid political statement of any kind. Look at what they burned: a portrait of one of the first women to attend UCT, a painting by some anti-apartheid artist, a portrait of Jan Smuts, etc. I mean, a "whiteness burning". That's as ridiculous as us having a lynching/"blackness burning" here in the United States. There's no reason for it.
"But" is not a fair thing to say. It's a stupid thing to say. This is what's happening, this is how these people are behaving, these are the reasons why this is unacceptably stupid and chaotic/violent, and that's just all there is to it. I think the majority of people here agree with this, even though we've got a handful of outliers in this thread who have made their dissenting opinions well-heard throughout this thread.
Jesus H. Fucking Christ
Do we really have this many regressive nimrods here? It isn't even a village idiot case either because, unless I've fucked up my counting, there have been something like four or five chucklefucks defending this rape of historical artifacts while supporting those who are transparently racist scum. Just fuck, man. I can't even.
[QUOTE=Govna;49780543]South Africa's history is different from the Southern United States'; having said that however, this "whiteness burning" isn't targeting the images of people who did anything wrong. They burned a portrait of one of the first women ever to attend UCT, PM Jan Smuts (who although he did support segregation later moved for integration, which is sensible rather than immediately having a policy of "everybody's equal, everybody will work together now"; that's too abrupt and not a feasible way to address long-term problems by trying to reduce them to short-term ones), burned some artist's painting that was against apartheid... etc. This isn't a political statement, there's nothing honorable going on here; it's just a bunch of retarded, violent animals running out and behaving like retarded, violent animals: destroying what they can get their hands on, yelling and hollering, and trying to hide behind a cover of "we're fighting against racism" (because lord knows that in this day and age, accusations of racism can be used as a weapon against people we don't like as much as it can be used as a shield to hide behind-- because, after all, if we claim we're behaving in an anti-racist and you're not with us, clearly then you must be a racist... even if you're not, we'll just spin you as one and do whatever we can to get our way like spoiled children).[/QUOTE]
Yup. I don't agree with their actions at all, but I'm hoping someone will consider their intentions and convey to them that while their actions are awful that their intentions are being considered. This is especially important because it's reached a point of extremism and simply wishing it away isn't going to happen.
[QUOTE=Shovel Mech;49780549]You're saying that they aren't entirely wrong, because some other white people mistreated some other black people centuries ago. You're saying that white murderers should face harsher punishment than black murderers.
The legal system is not supposed to work that way. A judge should not see black person or white person or any historical misdeed. The judge should see person killed person. He should give no consideration, none at all, to race or to historic context. Giving preferential treatment to one racial group while discriminating against others is racism, plain and simple.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that the retaliation of slaves against their slave owners [B]was[/B] justified, and it's an important thing to place afterwards. I also said that it was generally in response to slavery and desperation. It's not saying, "Yo, black people are more justified than white people" it was saying, "In general, as it pertained to retaliation of slavery, it was justified."
[QUOTE=discofex;49780011]I just want you to know your idea was tried in a South American country and it did not work.[/QUOTE]
Source? Point still stands. Current methods are not working, and you say my idea will not work. To me the only way to end it is through "is a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction"
[QUOTE]
Book/culture burning of things you disapprove of is and always was a symbol of high ignorance for a reason. You're fucking revolting if you think otherwise.[/QUOTE]
The bigger concern is what Sobonik said. This may be a prelude to genocide.
[QUOTE]acism isn't something that you can just fix with one ridiculous half baked solution.
It can only be eroded over time by treating people as you would treat anyone[/QUOTE]
Doesn't work that well. I am cynical concerning people.
[QUOTE]The best way to fight an enemy is to make them your friend.[/QUOTE]
The only way to accomplish that is make your interests theirs and vice versa.
[QUOTE=Govna;49780577]It doesn't mean anything. He's talking like a politician: talking without actually saying anything In the context of what's happening, these people are not making a valid political statement of any kind. Look at what they burned: a portrait of one of the first women to attend UCT, a painting by some anti-apartheid artist, a portrait of Jan Smuts, etc. I mean, a "whiteness burning". That's as ridiculous as us having a lynching/"blackness burning" here in the United States. There's no reason for it.
"But" is not a fair thing to say. It's a stupid thing to say. This is what's happening, this is how these people are behaving, these are the reasons why this is unacceptably stupid and chaotic/violent, and that's just all there is to it. I think the majority of people here agree with this, even though we've got a handful of outliers in this thread who have made their dissenting opinions well-heard throughout this thread.[/QUOTE]
I've kind of given up. I don't understand the point of his posts. They're objectively apologetic and defensive of the protestors, yet as soon as anyone points it out he says he's not defending them but just noting that they have a reason to be upset, which isn't what anyone is arguing about anyway.. No offense Wauterboi, but it feels like you came in here trying to play devil's advocate for a bunch of racist criminals and wound up backtracking to "no, no, I agree with you guys! I'm just saying, they have a reason!". We know they have a reason.. Everyone has a motive, nobody is arguing they're being remote-controlled by radio frequencies, we're just saying their reaction is completely unjustified despite whatever delusional reasoning they're working off of. Take a stance, honestly, there's nothing more annoying imo than the neutral poster that wastes everybody's time making an argument about nothing.
[QUOTE=Govna;49780543]destroying what they can get their hands on, yelling and hollering, and trying to hide behind a cover of "we're fighting against racism" (because lord knows that in this day and age, accusations of racism can be used as a weapon against people we don't like as much as it can be used as a shield to hide behind-- because, after all, if we claim we're behaving in an anti-racist context and you're not with us, clearly then you must be a racist... even if you're not, we'll just spin you as one and do whatever we can to get our way like spoiled children).[/QUOTE]
They didn't just target "oppressors", they targetted anything that may have been made by a white person an anything depicting white people. It really is just anti-white racism under the guise of being anti-racist.
The thing that bothers me is that people say you aren't born racist or sexist or have hate, BUT you are still somehow responsible for things your ancestors did like colonialism ect. Like come on really.
[QUOTE=Govna;49780577]It doesn't mean anything. He's talking like a politician: talking without actually saying anything In the context of what's happening, these people are not making a valid political statement of any kind. Look at what they burned: a portrait of one of the first women to attend UCT, a painting by some anti-apartheid artist, a portrait of Jan Smuts, etc. I mean, a "whiteness burning". That's as ridiculous as us having a lynching/"blackness burning" here in the United States. There's no reason for it.
"But" is not a fair thing to say. It's a stupid thing to say. This is what's happening, this is how these people are behaving, these are the reasons why this is unacceptably stupid and chaotic/violent, and that's just all there is to it. I think the majority of people here agree with this, even though we've got a handful of outliers in this thread who have made their dissenting opinions well-heard throughout this thread.[/QUOTE]
Question: when a serial killer kills someone and that thread is posted, what does your mind go to first: "holy shit what an awful inhuman monster" or "I wonder why they did this"? I do the latter every time, including in personal cases. I don't react as strongly as the next person, I really don't. In this scenario, what happened has already happened - arrest the people involved and start focusing on addressing the situation so it doesn't happen again. That means looking into the psyche of the person that would do this, sympathizing with their concerns, and dealing with it. That doesn't mean you have to lose integrity or suggest they aren't wrong, it just means that there's always more to the story and that the mindset that treats anyone like a 100% enemy is almost always stupid. I'm even guilty of that last part but I try my hardest not to be and even in the worst points of my life I've managed to default to asking why and focusing on the big picture instead of focusing exclusively on how much I disagree with these people. It's kind of why I've dreamed of focusing on psychological monsters, and why I enjoy reading about serial killers. Sure, you could just stop at, "Jeffery Dahmer ate people." But you could also ask why, and give enough sympathy to understand how he got to that point and use that knowledge to prevent it from happening again. All of you people who are remarking about these people and not wanting people to add another dimension to influence the opinion of these people are simply afraid that things will suddenly be more complicated and you can't just say "these people suck". They still suck, but they suck for a reason.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.