Are white people the victim of racism in South Africa? Watch

karl pilkington
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 months ago
#1
Can white people be the victim of racism? If you look at what is going on in south africa is it racist towards white people.
0
reply
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 months ago
#2
Yes white people can be the victim of racism.

In South Africa there are a lot of very unhappy people of all skin colours. The acts of violence there are abhorrent. Whether it can be called racist to me depends whether someone feels racially offended or not.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
6
reply
Big_Daymo
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 months ago
#3
(Original post by karl pilkington)
Can white people be the victim of racism? If you look at what is going on in south africa is it racist towards white people.
Yes. Black people in Africa are invading white farms and butchering the owners. It’s horrific and must be stopped, but no one will do anything because “well it’s their fault for enslaving blacks 300 years ago”. Don’t expect the racial tensions to ease up, they aren’t going to any time soon.
7
reply
limetang
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 months ago
#4
(Original post by 04MR17)
Yes white people can be the victim of racism.

In South Africa there are a lot of very unhappy people of all skin colours. The acts of violence there are abhorrent. Whether it can be called racist to me depends whether someone feels racially offended or not.
What an appalling definition. Racism is categorically not dependent on whether someone feels offended by it.

If I say hello to someone in the street and they feel racially offended by it for some reason that doesn’t nean it was racist
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 months ago
#5
(Original post by karl pilkington)
Can white people be the victim of racism? If you look at what is going on in south africa is it racist towards white people.
First, white people can be the victim of racism, just like other groups.

In South Africa, it is not as easy as you and other posters have put it. For decades, there was outright theft of lands and resources from black families and indigenous groups by white migrants. This led to a great divide in the country that was aided by apartheid.

The current situation is that the Government has been trying to reclaim the land and return them back to the rightful owners. Crazily enough, the media are calling it theft. Is it theft to return something that was stolen from you?

Let me give an example. As China become the world’s top power, imagine many Chinese people come to the UK and forcefully acquire British land. They use the land and claim it as theirs. Decades pass and the Government then decides to return the lands to the rightful British owners. Would we be jumping around like crazy people, as we are doing now.

I read a story about a guy in SA, who was a descendant of one of Cecil Rhodes’ close aides. He was given about 5,000 acres of arable farmland that was seized from the Xhosa people. Years later, his descendants are farmers and using the land, but the Government wants to return it to the original owners. The response is that it is theft. Really????

People need to read.
Last edited by Wired_1800; 3 months ago
13
reply
Zeetingman
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 months ago
#6
No lol how's that even a question
0
reply
radblr
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 months ago
#7
Theres no racism against white people as racism is a systemic and institutionalised process. Apartheid only ended there in the 1990s and there is a lot of unrest between races as you would imagine when the country was ruled by white supermecy in living memory of most of the population.
Last edited by radblr; 3 months ago
4
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 months ago
#8
(Original post by Big_Daymo)
Yes. Black people in Africa are invading white farms and butchering the owners. It’s horrific and must be stopped, but no one will do anything because “well it’s their fault for enslaving blacks 300 years ago”. Don’t expect the racial tensions to ease up, they aren’t going to any time soon.
You don't seem to know history. Ignorance is dangerous.
3
reply
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 months ago
#9
(Original post by limetang)
What an appalling definition. Racism is categorically not dependent on whether someone feels offended by it.

If I say hello to someone in the street and they feel racially offended by it for some reason that doesn’t nean it was racist
Criticising someone for a definition, without finding an alternative is categorically useless.

Practically, if nobody takes offence at something why should it be deemed a wrong thing to say? Cultural norms (including race attitudes) are defined by societal perceptions, how something is perceived defines whether it is acceptable or not.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 months ago
#10
(Original post by radblr)
racism is a systemic and institutionalised process
I think that you're inadvertently supporting the OP here, given the state of SA politics

The definition is **** either way, so it's best if you abandoned it and replaced it with 'black people can't be racist because we're special' or something equivalent. I'm sure that the alternative would sound far more convincing than your current argument.
0
reply
SkewlRules
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 months ago
#11
impossible to be racist to white people
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
radblr
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 months ago
#12
(Original post by JohanGRK)
I think that you're inadvertently supporting the OP here, given the state of SA politics

The definition is **** either way, so it's best if you abandoned it and replaced it with 'black people can't be racist because we're special' or something equivalent. I'm sure that the alternative would sound far more convincing than your current argument.
there are laws attempting to correct the social and econimic injustices of the apartheid. Despite being in the majority black people are still see as lesser in SA society and the vast majority of rich people are white. You cant just have no definitions for words black pepole cant be "racist" against the white people of SA to the same degree that white people were racist to them as they do not hold the same social econmical or political power.
0
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 months ago
#13
(Original post by radblr)
there are laws attempting to correct the social and econimic injustices of the apartheid. Despite being in the majority black people are still see as lesser in SA society and the vast majority of rich people are white. You cant just have no definitions for words black pepole cant be "racist" against the white people of SA to the same degree that white people were racist to them as they do not hold the same social econmical or political power.
You can have 'definitions for words' (whatever you mean by that) under my model - you just define racism as 'generalisations based on one's skin/ethnicity/etc', and then make a distinction between the magnitude of the oppression or harm caused.

Of course, the underlying assumption is that something that doesn't cause harm isn't equally morally blameworthy in itself, which leads to all sorts of conclusions that wouldn't benefit the people coming up with this **** (e.g. a bunch of racist whites shouting racist things in an all-white pub is less bad than a bunch of racist whites shouting the exact same thing in a diverse crowd in the middle of London). My point is that the act of shouting the racist... thing is equally bad (and the person should be castigated equally) no matter what the context is, because the logic and assumptions behind racism remain the same.

Interestingly enough, your answer managed to highlight yet another problem with your definition - that it focuses on potential, not actual, levels of oppression. What if the power structures are temporarily reversed (e.g. a black gang kicking a homeless white person to death, or a gang of black farm robbers attacking a white family)? What if a black manager rejects a white interviewee for purely racist reasons? Where are your pro-white 'power structures' then?
Last edited by JohanGRK; 3 months ago
0
reply
radblr
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 months ago
#14
(Original post by JohanGRK)
You can have 'definitions for words' (whatever you mean by that) under my model - you just define racism as 'generalisations based on one's skin/ethnicity/etc', and then make a distinction between the magnitude of the oppression or harm caused.

Of course, the underlying assumption is that something that doesn't cause harm isn't equally morally blameworthy in itself, which leads to all sorts of conclusions that wouldn't benefit the people coming up with this **** (e.g. a bunch of racist whites shouting racist things in an all-white pub is less bad than a bunch of racist whites shouting the exact same thing in a diverse crowd in the middle of London). My point is that the act of shouting the racist... thing is equally bad (and the person should be castigated equally) no matter what the context is, because the logic and assumptions behind racism remain the same.

Interestingly enough, your answer managed to highlight yet another problem with your definition - that it focuses on potential, not actual, levels of oppression. What if the power structures are temporarily reversed (e.g. a black gang kicking a homeless white person to death, or a gang of black farm robbers attacking a white family)? What if a black manager rejects a white interviewee for purely racist reasons? Where are your pro-white 'power structures' then?
Are you asking what i mean by workds need definitions ? :') Thats a very casual and basic definition of racism and fails to highlight the systemic issues. Individual acts of violence/descrimination do not constitute racism (although you seem to believe they do? idk your definition is all over the place) like i said its systemic. We will never agree because we clearly have different definitions of racism.
0
reply
limetang
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 months ago
#15
(Original post by 04MR17)
Criticising someone for a definition, without finding an alternative is categorically useless.

Practically, if nobody takes offence at something why should it be deemed a wrong thing to say? Cultural norms (including race attitudes) are defined by societal perceptions, how something is perceived defines whether it is acceptable or not.
1)Calling out a bad definition isn’t useless. It’s just not quite as useful as suggesting a different one

2) racism is simple. You are racist if you discriminate against someone because of their race. If you have racist hiring practices you’re still being racist even if the victim of your racism doesn’t realise it and consequently can’t be offended by what you’ve done.
1
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 months ago
#16
Ofcoruse they can be victims of racism.

I, however, don't think they are the victims of racism in South Africa. I think they're more the victims of retribution for decades of racism and abuse towards the local native community.
0
reply
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 months ago
#17
(Original post by limetang)
1)Calling out a bad definition isn’t useless. It’s just not quite as useful as suggesting a different one

2) racism is simple. You are racist if you discriminate against someone because of their race. If you have racist hiring practices you’re still being racist even if the victim of your racism doesn’t realise it and consequently can’t be offended by what you’ve done.
If the victim was conscious of it would they be offended? Then I'd regard it as racist. A victim's stupidity shouldn't exempt racists. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to achieve by disagreeing with me here...
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Alexty28
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 months ago
#18
Yes they are facing racial discrimination and horrible things are happening to them, but given the past situation of Apartheid were a white minority ruled the country and segregated people based on race you have to understand why this discrimination against white people is happening.
0
reply
Dandaman1
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 months ago
#19
(Original post by Wired_1800)
First, white people can be the victim of racism, just like other groups.

In South Africa, it is not as easy as you and other posters have put it. For decades, there was outright theft of lands and resources from black families and indigenous groups by white migrants. This led to a great divide in the country that was aided by apartheid.

The current situation is that the Government has been trying to reclaim the land and return them back to the rightful owners. Crazily enough, the media are calling it theft. Is it theft to return something that was stolen from you?

Let me give an example. As China become the world’s top power, imagine many Chinese people come to the UK and forcefully acquire British land. They use the land and claim it as theirs. Decades pass and the Government then decides to return the lands to the rightful British owners. Would we be jumping around like crazy people, as we are doing now.

I read a story about a guy in SA, who was a descendant of one of Cecil Rhodes’ close aides. He was given about 5,000 acres of arable farmland that was seized from the Xhosa people. Years later, his descendants are farmers and using the land, but the Government wants to return it to the original owners. The response is that it is theft. Really????

People need to read.
The "original owners" are long dead. It's not "returning" anything when you are forcefully taking property from individuals who didn't steal it and giving it to other individuals who didn't actually have anything taken from them. And I don't see the SA government redistributing the land the Zulus took from other African peoples back in the day.

Using your Chinese example, it would be completely wrong to take land away from Chinese people born there and and to give it over to British people who have had nothing to do with it for generations.

It basically boils down to: "You're white and your ancestors took this land from black people (who may or may not have taken it from other black people before them, but who cares), so now we're forcefully taking it from you and giving it to these other black people."

It's stupid and unethical. Don't try and justify it with sophistry.
3
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 months ago
#20
(Original post by Dandaman1)
The "original owners" are long dead. It's not "returning" anything when you are forcefully taking property from individuals who didn't steal it and giving it to other individuals who didn't actually have anything taken from them. And I don't see the SA government redistributing the land the Zulus took from other African peoples back in the day.

Using your Chinese example, it would be completely wrong to take land away from Chinese people born there and and to give it over to British people who have had nothing to do with it for generations.

It basically boils down to: "You're white and your ancestors took this land from black people (who may or may not have taken it from other black people before them, but who cares), so now we're forcefully taking it from you and giving it to these other black people."

It's stupid and unethical. Don't try and justify it with sophistry.
Crimes such as theft of land and genocide should never have a statue of limitations. Hitler committed genocide against many groups of people roughly 70 years ago. Despite most victims of these crimes being now deceased, people, their descendants are still pursuing justice and compensation, trying their best to restore justice and prevent these crimes from ever happening again.

The majority of white people living in SA, to this day, commit racism and abuse of the native population. Racism is so prevalent in SA. Its very overt and its rarely punished by the state. The SA government gives whites a huge latitude. It allows them freedom to do things which would cause scandals here in the UK.



Last edited by Pinkisk; 3 months ago
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (97)
22.05%
Before I was 12 (147)
33.41%
13 (71)
16.14%
14 (54)
12.27%
15 (33)
7.5%
16 (11)
2.5%
17 (5)
1.14%
18 (4)
0.91%
Between the ages of 19 - 24 (4)
0.91%
Over 25 (0)
0%
12 (14)
3.18%

Watched Threads

View All