What Say You?

I was listening to talk back radio today here in New Zealand, and one of the topics of discussion was South Africa and the affirmative action programs in employment and education that the current black majority government has in place to, as proponents of such policies advocate, "even the playing field." This particular show has two hosts, one of which is in favor of such policies, the other not. The detractor (Tamihere) was saying that no matter how good the intentions, these policies amount to nothing more than reverse discrimination; that they are, by definition, racist, and are no better than the old system of apartheid. In essence, he said, "two wrongs don't make a right." The advocate (Jackson) said that, although the crime and corruption are very bad, the affirmative action programs must remain in place; that it will take a long time to overcome a hundred-plus years of oppression. I agree - to a point. Yes, it will take a long time to overcome the past policies, but I do not believe in affirmative action.

Changing laws to create a level playing field of equality of opportunity is one thing, but agressive, activist policies to speed-up the process is wrong because equality of opportunity rarely, if ever, results in equality of outcome. It makes no sense, logically, to put people in positions in which they are ill-equipped and under-qualified to perform adequately simply to fulfill a quota based on demographics. It is most certainly wrong to pass-over a qualified applicant in favor of an unqualified one based on ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or anything else other than qualifications necessary to perform a particular task. If a person is not qualified, he or she is most certain to fail, usually miserably. Over time, once enough people have the education and skills necessary to perform a particular task, things will even out, but leftist advocates want change NOW and rarely consider the law of unintended consequences.

Regardless of whatever wrongs were committed by the European settlers of South Africa, they created a relatively modern, industrial society using Western technology that the tribal natives, if left to their own devices, would have taken hundreds of years to develop on their own. The primarlily Dutch and German European colonials built factories, houses, hospitals, schools, modern infrastructure like roading and highways, telecommunications, sewerage, running water, and electricity. As a result of internal and external political pressure and extremist tactics by the likes of Nelson Mandela (yes, folks, he was a terrorist), the white minority relinquished power - and control of the socio-economic structures that they built - to the black majority. I doubt that, no matter how bad their situation may have been, the "indigenous" people were not willing to return to tribal living conditions that existed prior to the arrival of the colonials - The modern, leftist notion of the "noble savage" makes for good romanticized literature and films, but it's a load of crap. So, why should the natives inherit a technologically advanced society that they did not build? Some may say that it was on the backs of the natives that the society was built; that they provided the bulk of the human labor. That is true, but without the technology that is the product of Western civilization, the natives had no concept of these things and may as well have continued to bark at the moon and worship the lizzard god.

When they handed-over the country to the natives, the Afrikaners should have reduced to rubble every bit of technology and infrastructure that they brought to the country, leaving it just the way their ancestors found it centuries ago, and let the natives fare on their own.

I was discussing this with some folks during afternoon tea, and a few were quite shocked by that proposal. As has been noted by some here and others that I have encountered throughout my life, I am not afraid to speak my mind and could really give a fuck whether or not anybody gets offended - that is their choice. Unlike most politicians I don't hold my finger to the wind and formulate my views based on popular opinion.

What say you?