Saturday, 28 May 2011

Why blacks don't vote for the D.A.

This one from my "kaffa" buddy Khaya. So why don't darkies vote for whiteys ?

It’s not that black people are racist. And I won’t get into the “can black people be racist debate” so let’s leave that outside (yes, I’m talking to you person who was about to write that comment before you’ve even read the whole column).

In case we forget, the ANC also gets a very small percentage of the white vote. One could also easily argue that white people are racist and that’s why they don’t vote for the ANC so let’s not even go the racist argument route. There will be no winners. It’s an easy and thoughtless argument to make. Let’s park it.

Of course there are many black people who vote DA, a whole six percent of them according to the DA’s own admission.

The reason black people don’t vote DA has little to do with the ANC racialising the vote. Some may to deny that the ANC has done that but it has. As we know, the ANC would stand to benefit more from a racialised election. There are naturally more black people in South Africa, therefore black people would then be voting ANC if the vote is based on the race card. That’s just how it is. If the ANC is racialising politics, the reason people are not voting for the DA is not because of racialisation at all.

One would also assume that it is because people don’t trust white people 17 years after the end of apartheid. Of course there is still suspicion. The scars are still too raw. Still too painful. But this is also not the reason.

Fixing problems

We still have white bosses in our places of employment. Some are better than others. Others are caring and genuinely want to see black progress. Some are resistant to change. Resisting what is new and what one does not know is not new, it is human nature. Just like some are trying to resist Twitter.

The real reason most black people won’t vote for the DA is because they want to fix their problems for themselves. They don’t want to feel like they need a white person to solve their problems for them. If they allow the DA to take over, this is what it will feel like, “We can’t do it for ourselves, let’s let the white people fix this for us.”

I know this may seem like a contradiction when I said it has nothing to do with race. It seems like race, but it really doesn’t have to do with race even though everything seems black and white. It’s about pride. It is about proving to ourselves that we can do it on our own. Once we are satisfied with this, once we have proved to everyone that we can, we can think about it.

This won’t make any sense to someone who has never experienced oppression, to someone who has never been told that they are subhuman and incapable of making complex decisions. Some may say we just want to fix the problems regardless of race. This is a bit like a woman complaining about a problem, then the guy tries to fix it and then she says, “I don’t want you to fix this for me, I want to fix it for myself, I just wanted you to listen and understand!”


The basic premise of apartheid was that black people are inferior and therefore are incapable of governing; they deserve white supervision. It is simple. Black people want to do it for themselves. Yes, with white help because we are all South Africans. It is a matter of not being told what to do by a white person. That is the perception one gets when one votes for the DA.

What will happen if Lindiwe Mazibuko leads the DA? Black people will still be suspicious. There will be a perception that she is being told what to do by the “madam” and white folks in the background even if that is not the case. It will take years before the DA washes that off.

There is nothing new about a particular racial grouping voting for a particular party. Let me take us to the United States. The US has two major parties, the Republican and Democratic parties. What is peculiar about the US is that even though the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, is the one that freed the slaves; it only gets about 12% of the black vote. When John Kerry ran for the presidency in 2004, he got 88% of the black vote. When Obama ran in 2008, he got 91% of the black vote.

What is even more peculiar is the fact that black people in the US hold similar conservative views as the Republicans but they will still not vote for the party because of some perceived racial biases the party holds. This is the problem the DA has in its hands - perceived racial biases. The party will have to get over that hurdle.

'Give us a chance'

The reason the black people in the US vote Democrat is thanks to presidents Franklin Roosevelt, JFK and Lyndon Johnson (Johnson who passed the civil rights act into law). When Johnson signed the law he knew that he was sacrificing the Democratic vote in the Southern states for generations in order to give black people equal rights to honour the constitution which says, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.”

But in doing so, he was losing a large white vote. Black people saw something tangible being done for them by a party and then stayed loyal to it. What can the DA do to prove that it is not just interested in getting the black vote but only after white interest? These are the questions the party has to ask of itself.

Sorry DA, black people aren’t being racist. It is a matter of saying, “Give us a chance to show that we are competent too.” In this regard, black people don’t mind working with white people, they just don’t want to be told what to do by white people. White people have been telling us what to do for years; can we just do it for ourselves now? Work with us but don’t tell us what to do. I know it’s tough to understand but that’s just how it is.


Dachshund said...

I'm with Justice Malala on this one.

Still using race to malign
For how long will 'service-delivery' protesters vote ANC?
By Justice Malala

Perhaps more than any other post-apartheid election, this election has introduced new and henceforth unseen forces into our political discourse. They are forces, lines of attack, that will stay with us for a long time - issues that may yet rip us apart.

For me the three main lingering issues in this election are in this order: race, history and delivery. With this election these issues lost their urgent nature and became something else - tools to attack and antagonise.

Race cannot be taken out of the South African discourse. We are where we are because of the centrality of race to apartheid and to decades of colonial rule before that. Clear-headed leaders such as Nelson Mandela always knew this. It is what one does with the race debate, and its centrality to development, that matters.

In this election the yearning to fashion a new South Africa took a backward step when political leaders began to use race in itself as a way to demean, discredit and malign opponents. It is one thing to demand affirmative action, and a totally different thing to refer to all whites as criminals, or to call Lindiwe Mazibuko a tea girl who is serving a "madam".

Such talk leads to the likes of Nceba Faku, the idiotic ANC regional leader in Nelson Mandela Bay metro, exhorting a crowd to drive blacks who voted for allegedly "white" parties into the sea. This is not a solution to our problems, but fuel to the fire.

There are consequences. If ANC leaders continue to condone such behaviour then the day is not far when minority groups will be targeted for attack. Leading the mobs will be the likes of Faku. Many will say this is alarmist talk. I say look at Rwanda and Nazi Germany, and remember that it all started when good men and women kept shtoom when the propaganda speeches were started by political leaders such as Faku.

The second issue that surfaced with this election is history and the manipulation of it. President Jacob Zuma invoked history at his final election speech at the FNB stadium, quoting from apartheid architect Hendrik Verwoerd.

It was not by accident that Zuma quoted Verwoerd. The Democratic Alliance's Midvaal municipality had been criticised for having a statue of Verwoerd at its Meyerton offices. Ironically, Verwoerd's statue was there when the ANC was in power from 1993 to 2000.

But let the facts not stand in the way of electioneering, so Zuma implied that the DA was the party of apartheid. "We have forgiven but we should not forget," Zuma said in Zulu. "Each vote that we cast for the ANC in each election is a declaration that we don't want to go back to the era of racism."

The ANC turns 100 next January and history will be invoked again and again to exhort blacks to vote for the party. This will happen in 2014 and the volume of the history rhetoric will be turned up in 2019.

Yet this may be a tactic with diminishing returns for the ANC. It did not work in the May 18 poll. Why would it work next time?

These issues will be buffeted by the delivery story. How long will communities engage in "service delivery" protests and then turn around and still vote for the ANC? If these "service delivery" protests are genuine grievances, and not intra-ANC factional fighting, then such a day is not far off.

The winter chill is here. We buy candles and hope for the best from Eskom. Let's hope we can avert the dark days, both in terms of Eskom and for our beloved country.

Anonymous said...

Rooster, you would not happen to be the author of "Importance of Spinoza for the Modern Philosophy of Science: Can the Revival of Spinoza's Naturalism Refute Cultural Relativism?"? This seems to be the copy book most of your philosophies agree with.

If not, then I must say that you are quite closely alighned with it's principles. I don't want to put you in a box and there is little I can tell from a few blog pages but would you agree with the following:

From the description, " The question raised in this book is why Spinoza's work which comes so close to the modern view of natural science is not prominent in the social sciences. The answer suggested is that this is due to the lingering influence of the Cartesian differentiation between the domain of science, dealing with material bodies in space and time, and the realm of thought to which the mind belongs. Spinoza's rejection of this mind/body dualism was based on his conviction that the human mind was an essential part of the 'forces' which maintain human existence. Since this view fits so well the evolutionary view of life, the book suggests that after Darwin, when this dualism became untenable, it was replaced by a nature versus culture dichotomy. The book examines whether the history of the philosophy of science supports this explanation. The author believes that answering this question is important because of the rising influence of cultural relativism which endangers the very survival of modern science and political stability."

In South Africa, cultural relativism used in the wrong context (see: ) is really at the heart of most of our divisions. If we really want a future where we can live and work and thrive together then we should focus on the ideals of the Rational Enlightenment to teach to our kids and not the ponderings of some bronze age desert tribesmen or whispers from the ancestors. Race, culture, creed, all these things fall away when we only accept ideas based on rational, evidence grounded ideals. In other words, "having a good reason for believing what you believe and caring about the truth of the thing". Sounds restrictive but in practice nothing could be more liberating and in South African we have always had a thirst for liberation. What do you think about this as a way forward?

The Rooster said...

What do you think about this as a way forward?


A bit off topic but you touched on something I'm interested in.

I'm more with Kant on free will and determinism (free will is very much an illusion, but an important one). Yet I don't buy into the lack of mind body dualism anymore although that was my position for years. Quantum physics liberated that dogma from me. The body almost certainly does not create the mind, rather the other way around. If anything the human body is the receptor of consciousness rather than the catalyst of it.

Anonymous said...

I agree on determination (or can think of no reason why you are wrong) and I would also add the statement that we have free will because we have no choice.

I would be interested to know how you resurrected dualism from quantum physics. From what I understand, our body is created from quantum particles and so I don't see how the separation occurs by simple understanding some principals of these particles. Penrose is also way off in some of his popular assertions on this topic if that is your source. If anything, all we know is that matter, and subsequently our body, is even more weird than we imagined. Dualism to me always seemed to invoke a supernatural quality and seperation of the mind to be explained but maybe I'm wrong.

(I'm still waiting for quantum mechanics to simplify as all things do that are better understood. Ten years maybe, accounting for the level in enquiry)

The Rooster said...

I would be interested to know how you resurrected dualism from quantum physics


For me the hanging questions regarding dualism were things like "qualia", imagination and empathy. These are things that are not consistant to any rigid physical priciples. The data that goes into the processor comes out differently and lumpy three dimensional space time physics is not sufficient in explaining the varience. Enter the wierd world of the quantum universe.

No longer do we need to grasp at super natural straws. If for the sake of thought experiment we take the logical leap that the mind is quantum in nature (not residing in the three dimensional space time that cages in our "bodies" but rather in a higher deimension)we can easily explain the transidental nature of the mind.

This is actually rather a common view in new cosmology and certainly nothing I pioneered other than coming to the conclusion seperately. It belongs to the field of cosmology rather than physics at the moment. That is to say it is philosophical and preditive in nature rather than based (as yet) iin hard physics.

The Rooster said...

Dualism to me always seemed to invoke a supernatural quality and seperation of the mind to be explained but maybe I'm wrong.


Don't get me wrong. The great irony about rationality is only "rational" way currently to understand the universe and the mind, is to give into admitting there are still things that appear to us to be chaotic or"super natural". That's not to say they are, it's just to admit we have no way of understanding them yet.

Any hard liner who takes a position of dualism or athiesm etc is really just a petchulant child who gets that the world isn't but really doesn't have a clue what it is either.

Dachshund said...

The body almost certainly does not create the mind, rather the other way around.

Agree. To turn Descartes on his head:

"I am, therefore I think."

Anonymous said...

Help me here! I still can't pronounce it "seedo" or "swaydo" ?????
As in pseudo-intellectuals?

Dachshund said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Boertjie said...

Hi all, first a pre-script : I've been preparing a response the past week.

Bear in mind I'm trying my best to be honest AND considerate in what I say.'s the post...

Boertjie said...

[Part 1 of 9]

Greetings Rooster,Dachshund and Anon

Heres another ASCII-character-cloudburst for you to work through.

Justice Malala (via Dachshund) : "There are consequences. If ANC leaders continue to condone such behaviour then the day is not far when minority groups will be targeted for attack. Leading the mobs will be the likes of Faku. Many will say this is alarmist talk. I say look at Rwanda and Nazi Germany, and remember that it all started when good men and women kept shtoom when the propaganda speeches were started by political leaders such as Faku."

So here we have a black man expressing concerns very similar (if not exactly the same) to the concerns I have over genocidal elements in SA. I feel a glimmer of understanding coming my way that immediately gets smothered in my own cynicism. Does this make any sense to you, Rooster, Dachshund?

Rooster, the rest of this post is an "open letter"- post to your buddy Khaya. Would you have him read this please?

Khaya, here I am, a somewhat stereotypical Boer/Afrikaner with an un-stereotypical need to understand how things work (in this case, people's minds, thoughts and emotions) talking from the heart to you about a variety of issues dividing me and my people from you and your people. There is a lot of things I want to say. It has proven difficult to present my side of the story and my observations in an orderly easy-readable format. What you are reading here is no less than the third rewriting of what I want to say.

On behalf of whom do I speak? I speak on behalf of myself and everyone who can identify and associate with me and my views.

Why do I speak on this issue to you? Firstly, it is theraputic to express all this stuff.I really need to get this off my chest. Secondly, this is good opportunity to honestly speak to the "other side", because in the real world, as opposed to in cyberspace, I don't feel I can talk the way I do here without putting myself at risk of serious hostility. Even now, under my screen-name, I feel I'm sticking my neck out, because many of my (honest!) thoughts/views/feelings are resented if not outright hated in some circles.

The essence of what you wrote seems to be this:

1) You have a need to prove your worth, especially when being stereotyped as incompetent. As you say, it's about pride. You want people to respect you.

2) You are very sensitive when things get racial. Apartheid-wounds.

3) You want to feel more compassion, care and understanding towards your people from whites.

All of this is very understandable. I'll talk on these and related things in a moment, but first, let me share my general views on some issues.

Boertjie said...

[Part 2 of 9]

Morality and compassion in general

A person's compassion and morality (these go hand in hand) is most probably the determining factors when it comes to

my respect/disrespect and like/dislike for a person. Right-and-wrong is a too complicated subject to adequetly

discuss here. All I can say is I disrespect and a person who doesn't seriously care about right and wrong.

And if a person does care about right-and-wrong, I still have to ask why exactly the person is concerned about it. I

think people MAINLY care about right-and-wrong for one of these reasons :

- because society/circumstances requires it from them.
- because its good for the self-esteem in a way.
- for the sake of right-and-wrong itself.

Only the last reason for caring about morality is genuine concern for morality. The other two reasons both has a

certain dishonesty/hypocrisy in them. If one cares about morality, one should make sure that it is for the right


Compassion, love for thy neighbour, generally being "good" inside...I think this has an inherent care for morality.

Again, the main motivation for this shouldn't be because society/circumstances requires it or because of one's

self-image. The good feeling brought on by being "good" ought to be a bonus rather than a goal.

The relationship between compassion and morality...this is kind-of a chicken-and-egg thing for me. I feel they both

tend to "promote" each other.

Compassion "encourages" morality. Compassion resents it when others are wronged and wants others to be treated

fairly/right. This also causes you to look at yourself to make sure you don't wrong others. This is how I think

compassion "encourages" morality.

Morality "guides" compassion. Morality "decides" who one can be compassionate to, who needs tough love and who

doesn't "deserve" compassion. It prevents you to being blind to others' flaws.

As you can see, morality can be a "cage" to compassion, but this need not nessecarily be the case. One can

accept/excuse/forgive a person's flaws if the person isn't knowingly and deliberately adhering to them. This,

however, does leave one with a responsibility to try to help a person overcome his/her flaws, should they be


I am a pretty forgiving guy, but that most certainly doesn't mean I'm blind to peoples flaws. If a person sins (is

this the right word?) out of weakness, but is "good" inside, I handle the person with a much more gentle and

unjudgemental attitude. But when someone is deliberate and/or knowing and willfull in malice and or wrongdoing, it

REALLY gets up my nose and I have to greatly restrain myself if I'm going to try to handle/help such a person.

Man, this is too a complicated and abstract subject to discuss adequetly here....but I guess you get what I'm trying

to convey.

So, I tend to group/associate/relate (can't find a fitting word) myself with people who are inherently "good" and

have an honest concern for right and wrong, despite flaws they may have.

Boertjie said...

[Part 3 of 9]

Self-respect, responsibility in general

Honest care for morality and inherent "goodness" I think has the trickle-down effect of making one a more

responsible and self-respecting person. Responsibility and self-respect for the sake/purpose of right and wrong...

Obviously, when you honestly care about right and wrong, you care about whether your own actions meets good moral

standards. For this reason I think morality (and maybe also compassion) may most probably be the root of


Self-respect requires one to look at oneself and decide if one is worthy of one's own respect in the aspect of


The connection between responsibility and morality? For obvious and intuitive reasons, morality requires honesty.

Responsibility means to own up (at least in your mind) to the consequences of the choices one make. Not doing this

implies that you don't acknowledge your choices' consequences, that you deny something that is true. This means you

are being, unknowingly or knowingly, dishonest towards at least yourself regarding your accounatbility for the

choices you make.

Obviously, self-respect and responsibility works together. I don't want to explain this now as my brain is getting

really fatigued trying to wrap around anll these abstract stuff...

Pride in general

I certainly don't have to explain this to you. You clearly feel it. But pride requires responsibility and

self-respect. Intuitively speaking, I think one ought to be the best one can be, given one's talents and

capabilities. Self-respect and responsibility is inherent to pride.

Intuition in general

This is something I almost want to call mysterious. One can, to at least some degree, intuitively distinguish

between right and wrong. One doesn't always really know WHY something is wrong. You just somehow KNOW that its


One can quickly "feel" what the connection between self-respect, responsibility, morality and compassion is. Yet it

took me some very intense brainwork to (very inadequetly) understand and explain the connection.

In this regard, I feel intuition truly can be described as a sixth sense.

* * *

Boertjie said...

[Part 4 of 9]

You may be asking why I felt like I needed to share all of this. There are several reasons :

- Understanding these things may help you understand just how important these things really are.

- Understanding these things may help you understand people better.

- I needed to convey how close to the heart these things are to me. Hopefully you'll be able to better judge what

kind of person I am.

Now about what you wrote, Khaya...

Pride and respect...

All I can say is strive to be the best you can be given your talents, capabilities and situation. Start by making

sure you are worthy of respect from other people and from yourself.

Having high aspirations for and expectations from one's people is noble, but naive. One is almost certain to be

disappointed in some aspect at some point in time. The best one can do is to be the best you can be, and try to

motivate others to do the same. And to disassociate yourself from members of your own people who you really feel you

can't agree with and can't influence to be better.

You have a need to achieve something to be proud of. Achieving something to be proud of requires effort,

preservation and responsibility. Use whatever talents and abilities you have to their full potential. If you do

that, you already have reason to be proud of yourself.

That being said, one should also try to be GOOD or at least adequete at what you do. This requires you to be honest

about your capabilities. One's job/profession is a perfect example. If one can do one's job well, then great! If

one's job-performance isn't up to standard, then just doing your best isn't good enough. One should try to gain the

abilities (through study/practice/whatever) to do the job well. Alternatively, one should consider whether the job

is right for you or not.

Be the best you can be with your talents and abilities, be responsible and you have my respect in this regard.

Boertjie said...

[Part 5 of 9]


Firstly, about apartheid. I'm too young to have seen it first-hand and to remember enough. I've read about it. But I

have to be honest : I feel I don't really know what has happened. Most of what I read is so emotionally-charged and

often one-sided (from both sides!), that I have little confidence in the asserted objectivity. So I feel I have to

rely on anecdotal evidence from people who experienced it whom I know well enough personally to be able to judge

their objectivity, neutrality and honesty. The result? Seems some things about apartheid were as bad as generally

said. Some things were seemingly worse than generally said. Some things weren't as bad as generally said. And some

things are just plain lies.

Distrusting whites post-apartheid is understandable enough. But something you said bothers me :

Khaya quote (via Rooster): "The scars are still too raw. Still too painful."

I think you typed this blog-post yourself (apart from the title and the first sentence). I think so because the

writing-style seems distinctly different from how Rooster writes. So I assume you have access to a computer and know

how to operate a computer. Working from here I make the leap-assumption that you do live at least an acceptable

living-standard? Is my very venturous assumption correct? I hope so.

When you talk about the still-painful apartheid-scars, I assume you talk for other people as well as for yourself?

Now...what happened to you that the scars are still painful? After 17 years still painful? Is it really the scars

that are painful, or do you just use the scars-pain to express bad feelings brought on by non-apartheid

events/issues? Are you not perhaps nurturing painful feelings rather than try to work through and past them? Don't

you find any consolation/healing in the fact that your people have been "free" for 17 years now? That there has been

a growing black middle class? Aren't you perhaps feeling just at least a bit too sorry for yourself? Aren't you

perhaps the victim of the ANC constantly reminding people about apartheid? How much are you doing on your side to

help heal your wounds?

I realise (if my experience is anything to go by) that I'll now almost certainly be accused of unfair

prejudice/bias/all sorts of nasty stuff. But that holds no relevancy to the validity of this whirl of questions. You

don't have to answer these questions to me, but definitively to yourself. You have to answer these questions

HONESTLY to yourself.

To put my concern in one sentence : 17 years and you still say the scars are "raw" and "painful"?

Boertjie said...

[Part 6 of 9]

Sensitivity about race

Khaya Quote (via Rooster) :

"I know this may seem like a contradiction when I said it has nothing to do with race. It seems like race, but it

really doesn’t have to do with race even though everything seems black and white."

This is called a paradox : something that seems like a contradiction but isn't.

Anyway, this statement of yours is actually more universally true that you may realize. I think much of SA's racism

isn't about race at all! More on this later...

However, race has become a means to stereotype people (I'll elaborate on the reasons for this later). I personally

know the resentment one feels when someone attaches bad attributes to you based on your race (or ethniticity,

religion, etc).

The best one can do is do the self-respect thing and be sure you are worthy of respect. If no-one respects you, then

at least you know you dealt with any reasons they may have to not respect you.

Wanting more understanding and compassion from whites

Very understandable. Judging by your writing, it seem you don't like many/most of the whites in SA. Especially the


Now what would your reaction be if I say to you that I (and others like me) want more understanding and compassion

from blacks? You most probably have several reasons why you don't like whites (assuming I'm correct about my

assumption of your dislike of whites). Racism that's not about race!

I just want you to know there are reasons for whites/Afrikaners' coldness towards blacks. I'll share these reasons


If you want more compassion from whites, make sure whites don't have legitimate reason to not be compassionate to you.

Boertjie said...

[Part 7 of 9]

Your choice of who you vote for

Things are much more cold and stark here. I don't know which political party you support. All I can reasonably

assume is that you don't support the DA.

You want your people to have the chance to prove themselves. The softest way I can think of to say how things are,

is this : The ANC has been in power for 17 years now, with the majority of black people supporting them. They've

built a track record. You have to be objective and honest to yourself when looking at their track record and decide

for yourself what they have proven.

When one's party governs well, the choice at the voting stations is easy. When one's party doesn't govern well, one

feels one want to give them another chance. How many chances would you give your party if they don't govern well?

How bad does government need to be before your concern for sound goverment outweighs your sentiments to your party?

Remember, your choice of vote is an important choice. And accept your responsibility for your choice of vote!

* * *

This was what I had to say about what you wrote.

Now I want to tell you why I and many whites generally dislike black people. And remember what I said : much of SA's

racism isn't about race.

So why do many whiteys dislike darkies?


And no, this isn't only a stereotype, its a reputation. And this doesn't apply to black people who are good at their


ANC-municipal government is one big example that is known to everyone.

And here is several personal experiences of mine:

Some time ago I was to accompany a singing-competition on the piano (I'm a pianist). The event was organized by the

Department of Education. The very polite and friendly black lady at the Department who organized the event phoned me

two weeks before the occasion. I agreed on the accompanyment, under the impression that I would be accompanying only

the local school's singers in the competition. Big surprise! I had to accompany all the singers who entered! And I

had only two weeks to learn to play all the music! During the communication between me and the organizer-lady, I had

to give her my fax number several times, a she repeatedly lost it. But the big shock came a few days before the

competition. I learned that there wasn't a piano at the venue. I asked the lady about this and it came out that she

assumed I was going to bring my own piano along!!!!!!! And I'm not making this up!!

Another experience : I access the internet at the local library. Originally they had set up the internet on the

computers without installing any antivirus-software!! By the time the computers didn't work anymore because of

malware, they didn't format the harddrives and reinstall everything. No, they bought new computers!! I asked that

they install antivirus-software and eventually they did. This antivirus proved to be very ineffective and pretty

soon the computers were f'd up again. This time they reinstalled everything. But again no antivirus-software!! So

Boertjie's frustration got the better of him and I asked Google how to get access to the administrators-account on

the computers, I accessed the admin-accounts and downloaded and installed a good free AV. Since then the computers

are mysteriously problem-free...

Want more anecdotes?

You can certainly understand how the stereotype of black people being incompetent came to be.

Boertjie said...

[Part 8 of 9]

We are vilified unfairly

Let me start off with another personal experience. The abovementioned singing-competition...there were three

speeches made during the day. During one speech the guy expressed dissappointment because it was only blacks who

took part in this competition. He said this is not pre-1994. Many of us whiteys can't relate to black culture (like

the MC speaking over a waaay-too-loud soundsystem, and music played so loud over the soundsystem that I couldn't

hear the piano I was playing as hard as I could...). So this guy vilified whites who prefer not to take part in a

mostly-black competition, regard less of why whites don't like to take part...

You know the general feeling that whites who don't want to mix & mingle with blacks are considered/accused of

resisting change? We tend to get vilified as rightwingers for this.

Some (not all!) blacks' conduct

Black protesters and strikers often turn aggressive and violent. Do you remember last year's post-soccer strikes? Do

you remember when the teachers went on strike, and intimidated those who wanted to go to school? Do you remember

when the hospital-staff went on strike and volunteers had to care for patients? And when salary-increases are

negotiated, strikers often staunchly reject raises that I would be just too thankful for!

Then there are the little things I experience...when driving, sometimes a black wants to cross the street. He sees

me coming, he sees I'm close, but he steps in front of me and crosses the street anyway.

At stop-signs, sometimes black people start walking slower when in front of me while crossing the street. (Hmmm, but

thinking about seems this is happening less to me nowadays...)

At the supermarket-till, when I was handed my change, the young black guy behind me realised he was a rand or two

short for what he wanted to buy. So he told (not asked) me to give him my change!

My mother was in the hospital for spinal-surgery. She told me at one instance, when she called from her bed for help

with something to one of the (black) hospital staff that was walking by, the nurse replied that they "were busy".

They were busy chatting in the halls!

And the big one : the ANC

The ANC is anti-white.

The ANC softhandles Mr Malema, they are very reluctant in speaking out against Uncle Bob up north, they try to

reason with Uncle Bob, they try to reason with the terrorist Gadaffi...

Corruption, tenderpreneurship and nepotism...

Poor government...


* * *

Boertjie said...

[Part 9 of 9]

As ive said : racism thats not about race...

Well, Khaya...I hope you're not too steaming mad at me right now, because what I've written is in no way meant to

hurt you or your people. Its just me being honest. And i've tried being as non-offensive as possible. You value

honesty, don't you? And what I've written isn't even the complete picture of what I see and experience...

I also do know there is (and personally know) very decent black people. I know that every ethnic group has its good

people and scum. I just see and experience too many bad things from black people to not generally expect bad things

from them. I can't feel so strongly about morality and compassion and NOT feel so resentful about all of these


Do you perhaps think I like disrespecting blacks? The answer would be I really don't want things to be like this.

Who wants live like this? I really want things to be different. But sadly, this is the reality.

I also have to emphasize that I'm not blind to my own fellow-whites' dark actions. You don't make a video of black

people eating soup a white supposedly pee'd in. Thats dispicable. You don't call a black person a k***** in his

face. You treat EVERYONE with due respect. And remember, I said DUE respect.

So as you hopefully can understand, there are reasons why us "racist" whiteys feel the way we do. Just as you have

reasons why you feel the way you do. many whites were actual bad-asses? Was it everyone, or just the government and their staunch

supporters? Who were the bad guysactually?

So, here's to mutual understanding, honesty, objective views and good morals


Boertjie said...

Again, I've thought long and hard about these things. So, Rooster, if don't agree with me, then don't spew your poison all over me. Rather explain to me why the reasons that I feel the way I do is invalid.

Try to treat me the way I try to treat you, okay?

The Rooster said...

Hey "boertjie".

Accodmodate and assimulate this : I love your posts. You show me that you are thinking. You show me you are fair. You point our valid insjutices. No where except in the imagination of the far right have I tried to say South Africa is perfect or even on the right track.

For the first few posts you made (and there is a lot to rspond to) I ask have you ever read Maslow and his hierarchy of needs ? Perhaps do that. The social sciences go a long way to explain many of the "morals" silly people get worked up about. Even betterb read some anthropology and get a slice of social relativism. You're young, but you are learning. I've no doubt a man who displays such an open mind and tolerance will end up on my side when he gets the necessary information.

Sorru I couldn't respond to your entire 10 part post. Please copy and re paste any questions you want specifically answered and I will be happy to do so. I'm very comfortable that my world views is the best possible one to have and extremely eager to indoctrinate you and general humanity into it. Don't believe the hype. Rooster is not a bad person , he's actually an extremely smart and kind person. People need to rather sit back and listen sometimes than spew thier filth.

Dachshund said...

Boertjie, could you please edit your sentences for spacing before posting? Reading your posts is like wading through haiku soup with a tea strainer.

Boertjie said...

Hi Rooster, Dachshund

Firstly, I see how intidy my post is. Its the gremlins that did it. I type my stuff in notepad (with wordwrap on and using the enter-key only for spacing between paragraphs). Dunno how the paragraphing got screwed up.

And secondly, I quote myself "Achieving something to be proud of requires effort, preservation and responsibility."

I meant to say "perseverance" instead of "preservation". The CPU between my ears was overheating at the time I typed that...

Anthropology and Maslow...I'm looking into it. My morals-posts was more an attempt at expressing and explaining my own personal values and understanding of these things rather than an attempt at an academic discussion. At this time my understanding of people is based solely on personal experiences. And this I say with confidence : I have a good understanding of how people's feelings work.

Rooster quote : "Don't believe the hype. Rooster is not a bad person , he's actually an extremely smart and kind person."

Okay, I accept it. You mean well. Your intentions are good. My defensive shields were up because you come across as a person who are quick to judge someone (and I do take the context into account when you say something). Plus the views and conclusions I expressed have a nasty way of making me the bad guy.

I just have this to say about what I see about you and then I'll leave it at that... It is clear to me : your intentions are noble, but there is something malicious inside of you. I feel you should take the time to look into yourself to get to the bottom of this. And to get it out of yourself. I don't mean you should try to change who you are (someone with a fiery personality), just neutralize those traces of toxin in you. I don't want to creep around inside your head or anything, it's just that I care... OK, to avoid becoming a pain in the ass, I won't press on this anymore from my side.

Rooster Quote : "Please copy and re paste any questions you want specifically answered and I will be happy to do so."

I want to ask you two (off-topic) questions:

First question about your take on how morality works... Let's take something simple like lying when you're not pressured to do so. I think everyone can agree that this is "wrong". Now, Rooster, how do you think morality/ethics/justice/etc work so that this is wrong?

Second question about something that seems to fit in the fields of anthropology and evolution...Do you have any opinions/ideas/knowlegde regarding the origin of music and, in particular, the origin of humans' capacity/ability for it? An example of the kind of things I'd like you to bear in mind: minor keys generally sound sad and major keys doesn't.

I'm really curious to see your views on these two things...

Oh, and while I'm at music, here's some examples of the kind of classical music I find people usually like, regardless of their particular taste in music (translation: maybe you'll enjoy them):

- Impromptu D899 no. 3 AKA Impromptu Opus 90 No. 3 By Franz Schubert
- Nocturne Opus 27 No 2 By Chopin
- Turkish March by Beethoven/Rubinstein (especially the Evgeny Kissin recording)
- Nessun Dorma by Puccini

Find them on Youtube.

Peace, love, a lazyboy chair & hot chocolate

The Rooster said...

It is clear to me : your intentions are noble, but there is something malicious inside of you. I feel you should take the time to look into yourself to get to the bottom of this.


It's nothing more that irritation with the repitition of lawed logic and baseless propoganda I have to counter punch against. There's nothing malicious inside me at all and I have demontsrated this countless times in the history of this blog.

Anonymous said...

I think the philosophical reasoning that states that we can never be certain of anything is sound (although I can't be certain that I'm not certain - I think) but should be ignored directly after it is acknowledged. It's wearisome and counter productive to have to refer to it every time we have an idea. So acknowledgement made, and on to the thought - which may or may not be right.

Rooster, I could agree with you on Dualism but then we would both be wrong. I would say that the body almost certainly creates the mind in the same way that the deployment of a photon generator, a couple of plates and a photo sensitive screen determine the results of the quantum double slit experiment. A probability amplitude can not manifest without those ridged physical properties being first in place and likewise, qualities like empathy, imagination and qualia can not come, in tact, from "that other dimension". The equipment determines the nature of the experiment/thought. Evolution developed the hall of mirrors that is our brain over eons and it's the physical brain that determines our thoughts. This is demonstrable through mountains of medical experimentation and physical evidence. Pinch one part of the brain and the names of mammals are suddenly forgotten or you suddenly have a strong attraction for the colour green etc. Our brain is like a puppet master, teasing quantum fluctuations to do its bidding in the way a child plays with a jar full of fireflies. I think this unhappy marriage is what gives the mind its apparent transcendent nature- physical properties evolving alongside quantum phenomena. It's a union , not a division; two parts of the same pie.

I suppose you could advance the fact that, in that case, our physical environment determines the evolution and properties of our brain and we could dive into new age hippie speak about being one with the universe and all that but there I get a little lost so lets leave it alone.

That aside, the point I was advancing (before I bore you to death) is that superstition is not real knowledge. With real knowledge comes perspective; the sort of perspective that arranges trifling observations like the shade of a persons skin somewhere near the bottom of our prioritise. You have that perspective but our countrymen seem to have opted for the scratch and sniff method of acquiring knowledge. Humans have woken up in our universe and considering what is on offer I laugh (and cry a bit) at the preoccupation some people have with the subject of race. I'm sure if some clever mathematician could come up with an equation of just how predictable our troubles in South Africa are it would be analogous with an equation predicting the condition of a farmers crop after the demolition derby took a wrong turn into it. The way forward is to resow that land with the seeds of critical thinking before weeds of circular stupidity that states things like, "don't mind me, I'm only on a mission for god" or "the nature of a person is solely determined by his race" take hold.

I do take a hard line on atheism because theism is stupid. If it/they ever turned out to be correct I would have to simply give up trying to determine anything. It can not be believed by a thinking person (one thinking critically about theism that is). There is a chance for deism but no evidence for it along with a very low probability. Cultural relativism is divisive and rational thinking needs to start kicking ass if we every want to climb out of the coal pit together. If racism is a symptom of stupidity then lets treat for stupidity.

OK, I just realised that I'm waffling on and I don't know how to make my point so I will just say two more things to anybody reading this and then stop - pseudo-intellectuals get more pussy than you do - and - Boertjie, after careful consideration, it turns out that you are suffering from exposure to stupidity and not black people. May I recommend the Antarctic.


Anonymous said...

It is clear to me : your intentions are noble, but there is something malicious inside of you. I feel you should take the time to look into yourself to get to the bottom of this.

As an interested observer, how exactly is this clear to you? Was it just a "feeling" you had or can you point to something specific? It's more than likely that the threat you feel is just your brain acknowledging the fact that it may need to do some work outside of it's comfortable paradigm.

Boertjie said...

"As an interested observer, how exactly is this clear to you? Was it just a "feeling" you had or can you point to something specific? It's more than likely that the threat you feel is just your brain acknowledging the fact that it may need to do some work outside of it's comfortable paradigm. "

Firstly, it ought to be clear that I'm a pretty analytical and thinking guy. This should be evident from my posts. Also see my long post under "So its over, i win".

Regarding that something thorny I see inside obviously read my views on ethics and compassion and you can see ("feel"?) how I feel about these things. I assume you're familiar with Rooster's writings and the attitude he assumes. To keep to my resolution to not become a pain in Rooster's ass, I won't point to specific examples unless he asks me to.

I'm not sure you really want an answer as to why I feel the way I do about Rooster, because it seems you have answered your own question already.

If you really want an answer...ask yourself "WHY does Boertjie think so?" And please don't grab onto the first answer that springs to mind. I'm a complicated guy!:-)

Come on, carefully ask yourself "WHY?". And think carefully before coming to a conclusion.


Anonymous said...

Boertjie, if you don't know a point blank question when you see one then let me try to invoke an answer from you.

In my experience self-praise is no recommendation and best left for others to decide but let's go with your "analytical and thinking guy" ascription. The previous posts you've alibied your literalistic mind with betrays a vast ignorance of the ironic mind. Sure, you have no problem with identifying irony in its basic form (and making certain we all "get it" with mind numbing, long winded explanations) but you seem to have confused maliciousness - which I see now has been downgraded to "thorny" - with an ironic take. Rooster may poke the dog with a stick for time to time to see if its a biter but you don't have to look very far to gauge the real nature of the person.

Not very far indeed, just look at the warm reception he gave your symphony of bullshit. While I'm sure he had a slight chuckle to himself at the naivety of it, he chose (correctly in my mind) to praise the one worthy aspect of the whole novel, the fact that you are thinking about it; and that's no small thing on this page so frequented by right-wing-nuts. Fortunately, this is not my blog so I don't have to worry about taking so large a hammer to so fragile a nut. So, lets have it, your best reason for suggesting that Rooster is a closet psycopath. He is a big boy; I'm sure he won't mind.

Boertjie said...

Hi Anonymous

You really made me smile! I sure got you irritated without even meaning to do it! Don't get so worked up, it's bad for your health! :-D

"It's more than likely that the threat you feel is just your brain acknowledging the fact that it may need to do some work outside of it's comfortable paradigm."

I note the room for alternatives in your words "more than likely".

Then I note you use the word "fact" instead of something like "possibility".

I note the absence of a question mark in the abovequoted quote.

Still seems to me you made up your mind about me before giving me the chance to answer.

Hence I encouraged you to try and crawl around inside my little boer-brain, to see things through my eyes. What do you have to lose? You only get yet another perpective to add to your database of different perspectives to form opinions on. You can't lose here. Even if I have nothing of worth to say, you can still at least learn from a bad example and how my psychology works.

"mind numbing, long winded explanations"

Can't help it. I'm a perfectionist. Would you rather have me just say stuff without thouroughly trying motivating it? That's not a rhetorical question.

"has been downgraded to "thorny""

Analogously (is that spelt right?) a lie can be "downgraded" to a white lie. Ignorance can be "downgraded" to lack of knowledge. Impatience can be "downgraded" to irritation. Do you want a mind-numbing and long-winded explanation?

"symphony of bullshit"

Good observation! You've seen that I'm a pianist! You've seen the musicality in me! :-D

"so fragile a nut"

Are you talking here about the radical-righteys or me? If its the latter then I say : Great progress! You have seen that I care about my own and other people's feelings.

"that Rooster is a closet psycopath"

Nice! First you have asserted I downgraded "maliciousness" to "thornyness" and now YOU upgrade my view of Rooster to that! BTW, I've clearly seen how mightily frustrated Rooster gets when people take what he says out of context. And betraying how your emotions cloud your ability to see clearly : you seemingly didn't even pick up the clue I left you as to what my problem with Rooster is. Try again.

And besides, its between me and Rooster. I know I have a nasty habit of being like a irritating little chihuahua nipping at at a persons heels. Therefore I'll only write more specifically about this if Rooster thinks I'll be fair in my views and if he asks me to.

Come on, Anon, be a little nicer and I'll frustrate you a little less. :-)

Peace and good intentions

Anonymous said...

Actually, I was hoping for a laugh. You did pick some of the riper berries but as I say, you are still learning about irony. Boertjie, the only way you could irritate me is if your response was in the form of a rap jingle. You did interest me, with your "advice" for Rooster. It's not often you see a character assassination with diplomatic immunity - and now I don't have to gate crash, great, but if you don't mind I prefer to stroll than crawl.

Leave that classical stuff alone for a while and play some angry jazz. When the notes don't go all the way across the page there is some space for a little malice.

Boertjie said...

Hi Anon

In my opinion, Prokofiev is the heavy metal/sokkie of classical music. I'm very prejudiced about trying to listen to Prokofiev.

And about angry music, I once read that Franz Liszt sometimes broke the piano. I can't claim such a victory, but I have snapped strings before. :-D

Me mocking myself : I said "crawl" because my brain is not that spacious! <:O)

And I didn't mean to try to character assasinate Rooster. It's REALLY just me trying to help in my own little way.

Boertjie said...

Oh yes, forgot to say :

I do know this : Rooster likes to mirror bigotery back at bigots, he has a wierd sense of humour, he gets highly frustrated at repeated flawed arguments and he had some very unpleasant encounters with the SAS-crowd.

The Rooster said...

I do know this : Rooster likes to mirror bigotery back at bigots, he has a wierd sense of humour, he gets highly frustrated at repeated flawed arguments and he had some very unpleasant encounters with the SAS-crowd.


Couldn't have said it better myself. Everyone is being so nice today that it almost makes me regret treating my readers like such a twat

. Almost.