Suid-Afrika se magtigste mediagroep, Media24, het so pas ‘n haatveldtog teen wit mans van stapel gestuur en bepleit terselfdertyd dat “radikale ekonomiese transformasie” (‘n eufemisme vir marxistiese revolusie) moet plaasvind. In ‘n sogenaamde “blog” of woernaal wat met fanfare op die webblad van Huffington Post South Africa, ‘n Media24-publikasie aangebied is, skryf ene Shelley Garland dat blanke mans regoor die wêreld van stemreg ontneem moet word.
Nadat Media24/Huffington Post se oproep om wêreldwye diskriminasie en vervolging van blanke mans internasionaal opslae gemaak het, is die stuk van Huffington Post South Africa se webblad verwyder met die verskoning dat dit onder ‘n skuilnaam verskyn het. Dit laat die vraag ontstaan: Maar wie is Shelley Garland?
Media24 beskik oor verskeie huidige en gewese rubriekskryfsters wat hulle as “radikale feministe” roem en gereeld gal teen wit mans braak, waaronder Christi van der Westhuizen, Hannelie Booyens, Amanda Gouws en die hoof van Media24 self, Esmaré Weideman. Enigeen van hulle, asook die redaktrise van Huffington Post South Africa, Verashni Pillay, kon die artikel geskryf het. Dié het in haar kommentaar die oproep om blanke mans van stemreg te ontneem as “standaard- feministiese teorie” beskryf.
In ‘n meegaande video by die artikel waarin onderhoude met hoofsaaklik swartes gevoer word, word marxistiese revolusie oftewel “radikale ekonomiese transformasie” bepleit. ‘n Swart man in die video sê dat “ons alles (van wit mans) moet vat en ons moet alles besit”.
Lees ook Dan Roodt: Media24-HuffPost sim hates white men while her stove is burning.
In die openbare belang plaas PRAAG die volledige artikel in die oorspronklike Engels soos dit op Huffington Post South Africa verskyn het.
Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?
Shelley Garland
Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men. If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa’s biggest cities.
If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.
At the same time, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners. After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism. A period of twenty years without white men in the world’s parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world’s wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.
This redistribution of the world’s wealth is long overdue, and it is not just South Africa where white males own a disproportionate amount of wealth. While in South Africa 90 percent of the country’s land is in the hands of whites (it is safe to assume these are mainly men), along with 97 percent of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, this is also the norm in the rest of the world. Namibia has similar statistics with regard to land distribution and one can assume this holds for other assets too. As Oxfam notes eight men control as much as wealth as the poorest 50 percent of the world’s population. In the United States ten percent of the population (nearly all white) own 90 percent of all assets – it is likely that these assets are largely in the hands of males. Although statistics by race are difficult to find from other parts of the world, it is very likely that the majority of the world’s assets are in the hands of white males, despite them making up less than 10 percent of the world’s population.
It is obvious that this violent status quo will not change without a struggle, and the only way to do so will be through the expropriation of these various assets and equitably distribute them to those who need them. This will not only make the world a more equitable place, but will also go some way to paying the debt that white males owe the world. Over the past 500 years colonialism, slavery, and various aggressive wars and genocides, have been due to the actions of white men. Redistributing some of their assets will go some way to paying the historical debt that they owe society.
It is no surprise that liberalism – and its ideological offshoots of conservatism and libertarianism – are the most popular ideologies among white males. These ideologies with their focus on individuals and individual responsibility, rather than group affiliation, allow white men to ignore the debt that they owe society, and from acknowledging that most of their assets, wealth, and privilege are the result of theft and violence.
Some may argue that this is unfair. Let’s be clear, it may be unfair, but a moratorium on the franchise for white males for a period of between 20 and 30 years is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others, particularly those with black, female-identifying bodies. In addition, white men should not be stripped of their other rights, and this withholding of the franchise should only be a temporary measure, as the world rights the wrongs of the past.
A withholding of the franchise from white males, along with the passing of legislation in this period to redistribute some of their assets, will also, to a degree, act as the reparations for slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, which the world is crying out for to be paid.
As we saw after the recent altercation between a white man and Lebohang Mabuya at a Spur restaurant in Johannesburg, white males still believe that they are in control, and people who aren’t white or male (in particularly black female-identifying people) have to bow to their every whim. There are numerous other examples of white angry male violence in South Africa and abroad, often against black bodies (Dylann Roof’s terrorist actions in the United States is only one of many examples). It is time to wrestle control of the world back from white males, and the first step will be a temporary restriction of the franchise to them.
Although this may seem unfair and unjust, allowing white males to continue to call the shots politically and economically, following their actions over the past 500 years, is the greater injustice.
