RE: Neutrality is Assent to the Oppressor
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
were you in South Africa during apartheid?
0
0
0.000
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
were you in South Africa during apartheid?
I wasn't aware that it stopped.
I mean apartheid in the general sense as the mentality of elitism of one race over another.
That is certainly still prevalent in some groups of people as I understand it today.
I was in South Africa in 2009.
As far as I was aware there were no explicit laws dividing people by race or colour but regardless the division was still obvious in a strictly social sense.
I have not read a history book on South African apartheid. So I am not aware of the time frame you are talking of.
I have simply been there and spent time with some of the people.
The conditioning of elitism takes a long time to purge out of a group.
My friend whose parents were elitist was not elitist himself. This gives some hope.
It is a complex issue that possibly neither of us have the depth of experience to truly relate to.
We are all human and after acceptance of what our past generations have done we must be patient to take the time to heal as old reactions try to renew themselves.
Apartheid in the general sense as a mentality in South Africa may be around for another generation or two.
Humans do not sometimes forget easily.
In your first comment you made the statement you'd been to South Africa and both sides needed to be seen. I responded by asking you if you were there during apartheid. You responded that you weren't aware that it had stopped. What you are calling apartheid is not what it was in South Africa, so, yeah, having a look at a history book would be a good idea.
Apartheid in South Africa was a period of white minority rule between 1948 and 1994. It was a period where among other details:
What you describe as apartheid is social structure, not even close to what actual apartheid was.
I brought up the subject in my post for two reasons.
One was the Desmond Tutu, the author of the quote, was a central figure not only in ending apartheid but in dealing with the aftermath and efforts to bring about healing between the races.
The second reason was that the exchange I had with my mother's friend about her time in South Africa (during apartheid) illustrated neutrality as consent.
The post is mostly about bullying. Apartheid was state-sponsored bullying. South Africa is most certainly not the only country in the world to engage in state-sponsored. My own country has it's own dark history with state-sponsored bullying.
The problem with paying too much attention to state-sponsored bullying in discussing the topic is that it makes it too easy to let people look away from their own behaviour when it comes to the topic. Something I noticed, you never commented on.
What I said was:
I was not condoning apartheid or justifying the atrocities. You seemed to have jumped to that conclusion on my part.
There is always more to a story than labeling an abuser and a victim.
For example, I have friends who are Israeli and I have friends who are palestinian.
I have friends who are Israeli that are palestinian activists.
When one side decides, you must go or you must be separated. It is a reaction of fear.
Then the other side says... no.. if you say I must do this or you say I must go then, you must go or you have no right here.
The palestinians would love to see the Israelis disappear and yet their are Israelis born on the occupied land with no direct knowledge of the conflict then forced themselves to need a place to live and so by default participate in the conflict assuming their parents were right.
Conflicts are generational.
The truth is at the end of it they are all human and have human needs. It takes an effort to stand back from the conflict and really see what is going on.
That people are afraid.
When conditions are placed to create a unified community apartheid can cease.
This takes generations to change.
Yes, apartheid is a mental thing as much as it was a physical thing in South Africa in the period you mention.
People build up memories and reactions and they identify with these reactions then commit to repeating abuse by continuing to react. Both sides needs to take an active part to create a solution.
I ask, are you South African or have you been to South Africa? Have you seen and met the people? You seem to know a lot about this from a book but have you seen and met people from an apartheid situation directly?
EDIT: Our positions did not differ yet you have capitalized on the differences you decided to see for the sake of coming out on top. Is this necessary? How is it different to the beginnings of apartheid? We can create a shared aim and work towards that. We can also create a solution.
---------------++++++++
Where exactly did you get the idea I jumped to any conclusion about you condoning what occurred during apartheid in South Africa when it was abundantly clear you didn't even know the era existed?
I didn't capitalize on anything nor did I consider there was anything to come out on top of. Maybe in your mind. I don't usually consider replying to comments to be some sort of intellectual wrestling match.
It was clear you lacked the awareness of the era to which I was referring to and to which Desmond Tutu and my mother's friend were relevant to. Since you lacked that awareness I most certainly would not be arriving at any conclusions about your view on a topic you were clearly ignorant of.
Apartheid in South Africa was not the actual subject of the post yet it seems to be what you've chose to fixate on.
Modern day South Africa is irrelevant to the post.
Once again I will point out that I purposely chose to not address nation state conflicts in order to put the attention on individuals and their role in the subject of bullying.
I note once again, you seem to be avoiding that topic. It may be you chose to focus on the nation state as a more comfortable topic. Or maybe you just missed what the post was actually about.
Well for starters I was indeed aware of the existence of the period you outlined.
I did not know exactly when it happened.
But I am glad you have let me know the full details.
Today's South Africa or todays situation of any past of a society from an apartheid situation are extremely relevant. The people that lived through that and live through the aftermath of that have invaluable experiences. When I say I wasn't aware it finished. I was clear of what I meant when I said apartheid in the broader sense. This mentality still exists and there is still segregation as far as I am aware, albeit not with the use of law.
You chose to focus on this subject in your blog as much as I did and a disagreement in semantics has caused an inability to communicate.
I did indeed read the rest of your article and I related it directly to the encroaching totalitarian state the situation of state sponsored bullying to push an experimental injection on everybody.
The apartheid situation being developed now by the government between those vaccinated and those that choose to repsect the function of their innate immune system is real.
By learning from past apartheid and segregation experiences whether it be South Africa, Nazi Germany, Palestine or Northern Ireland - directly from the people who have experienced it first hand and feel the effects and know how long it takes to heal - we can avoid this.
Not sure why we have to keep disagreeing and finding fault in what the other has said.
Shake hands?
I think it's pretty clear that you want to focus on and talk about social apartheid which is not the subject of this post.
If I wanted to talk about social apartheid I could have talked about any country in the world, including my own.
The only reason South Africa was brought up is because of the context to Desmond Tutu and the actual period of apartheid he fought against.
Your focus and mine are clearly different.
Mine is on the personal responsibility and reactions to bullying which is the topic of this post. I don't have any interest in being dragged into a discussion of social apartheid and have tried to kindly redirect you to the topic of the post.
Yours has been on social apartheid. I think it would be a great idea for you to do a post on the subject of social apartheid. Clearly you have an interest and some passion for the subject.
I disagree. Our focus is not exclusive from one another.
Apartheid takes up a third of your post and Desmond Tutu was a part of South African society.
You final subject conclusion is to relate it to bullying.
As you have made the relation yourself I see no distinction between apartheid in any situation - past or modern - and bullying in a social setting.
You could have used any other apartheid situation and any other leader's quote from 'that' situation.
The designation of where it happened is irrelevant.
I am not sure how you see a difference.
If you can't see the link between bullying and apartheid, this discussion just became a total waste of time and energy. You maybe should have made that clearer sooner and saved us both a lot of time.
As you read in the post, the quote came to me, I didn't seek it out. I did choose to work with it.
So, once again, you want to talk about social apartheid have at it on your own post. This discussion just ended.
Excuse me - we have another disagreement caused by language.
This means... I see no separation between apartheid in any situation and bullying in a social setting.