# Social Category > South African Politics Forum >  Ethnicity - Homo Sapiens and the Black aberration.

## ChrisNG53

Like so many others, Halle Berry, that incredibly beautiful version of the female species, has just fallen flat on her face as a member of homo sapiens. So has Gabriel Aubry, the father of their beautiful  young daughter.
Halle insists that their daughter is _black_. Gabriel insists that the child is _white_.  The simple fact that the child is neitherwhite nor black , as a matter of anthropological/genetic/visual reality, is completely lost on these two bright sparks, as they sound off from their respective corners.
Others have joined the fray, whilst tens of thousands are already also locked into their respective corners on this now vexed issue. And what is the issue? It is all about the ethnicity about folks of _mixed_ race.
During the immediate past it has become politically correct for anybody who has even _one drop_ of black blood in their veins to proudly classify themselves as black. The result is the visually absurd situation where even folk who are visually quite white are referred to as black, because somewhere in their pedigree there was a contribution of black sperm or egg. The one drop rule is a Jim Crowe-era notion that a person is "black" if they have even a single drop of black blood. It is all powerful. Just one drop trumps even 99.99% "whiteness!". Wow! 
Barrack Obama is the quintessential example. The guy has a black father and a white mother. So he simply cannot be regarded/classified as either white or black. Well you cant do this, and still claim to be a member of a sentient _(cognito, ergo sum)_ species on this planet, concerned with simple truth. What renders the thing even more absurd, is that Barrack was brought up by his White mother. But somehow we contrive to say he is black? Are we all coo-coo?
The grim reality however is that there are millions who proudly take this stance, that a man who is not black, is black. The cognitive process is  _yes, as homo sapiens, I know that he is not black, but because I have good reason to deny this, that makes him black!!!!_. Thats it!
Thats the justification, in terms of which simple truth is converted and metamorphosized into something else, something other than truth. We do this even though, unlike other creatures, we are possessed of the great gift of intellect. We then use that gift to deny, distort and obfuscate truth  because we say we have good reason to!
And in this process, we quite comfortably ignore so many lessons from history, that prove that so much evil starts with truth being denied, distorted and obfuscated, on the basis of a claimed good reason. The list is endless, but includes the apartheid government justifying its brutalization of Black people on the claimed Biblically based justification that Blacks were ordained to be hewers of wood, and drawers of water. The Holocaust was founded on a whole host of claimed justifications to submerge and destroy simple truth that all human beings are equal. All injustice starts with a lie ... usually a big one!
Now what is this good reason? Why do so many subscribe to this_ one drop is enough to make me Black_ dogma? Surprisingly it is really is quite simple. It is a hangover from a time when White folk quite brutally indulged themselves in the same denial of truth mindset and went about quite viciously  forcing us to accept the_ one drop_ rule  which we have since voluntarily elevated to a somewhat sacred dogma!.
Wow! We take the grossly cruel and misguided philosophy of the oppressor, and voluntarily elevate it to a sacredly held dogma! Are we mad  or incredibly stupid  or delusional  or all three?? Why, in the name of heaven, are we adopting the evil culture of the oppressor?
Look, the reason why we once needed to all be Black is perfectly understandable. . We once had little or no option. A racist dominant group pretty well made sure of this  in trying to contend for its own supposed superiority, based on supposed  racial purity, as justification for gross social injustice.   In the fight for social justice we were indeed forced into one camp. Our heroic leaders, like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were indeed Black. It was all too easy and natural for all of us _one drop_ lot to coalesce into one big Black camp.
However, the world has moved on. Times have changed. We have shed the yoke of oppression. We are free to be who we are! We are free to be who we are! We are free to be who we are! White driven racism has, by and large, been overthrown. White folk have moved on.
Yes, White folk have moved on. Do we not understand that it is White folk who put Barrack Obama in power? Do we not understand that this proves beyond any doubt that they have moved on? They voted him in as President of the most powerful country on this planet because they have moved on. Right there, they proved that merit, not race or colour coding, was the criteria if the interests of mankind were to be advanced. In South Africa, and other African countries, the Black majority is now dominant. There is simply no reason to coalesce into one_ black grouping_.  Why do we allow our minds to remain imprisoned in the racist past?

*We are free to be who we are!*

Now please ask a 5 year old child  to match the following persons to the colours black, brown and white  Barrack Obama, George Bush and Michael Jordan.
Are you now going to dispute the simple truth that is going to emerge from the uncluttered, unprejudiced, unencumbered mind of the child? Are you going to lie to the child  and justify the lie with a long storythat should really be relegated to the dustbin of history?
When Halle Berry starts lying to her beautiful brown skinned  daughter that she is actually black, what is she doing to the mind of that child? What is she doing to the childs self-image? A child absolutely knows when you are lying. For God's sake, the child can see itself in the mirror. And here you are lying about something critically important to the child - its self-image! Psychologists and criminologists all agree  that self image is critically important to all human beings, particularly children. It ensures proper development and militates against deviance and criminal propensity. That much is no longer rocket science. So too as regards the fact that self image starts (and ends)  with knowing and accepting WHO YOU ARE! That is why it is now the legal norm that an adopted child has a legal right to know who its natural parents are! So I think parents who do this to their children need to be horsewhipped!

So can we please, please, please dump this herd mentality and stop insisting on putting ourselves in colour coded camps? Even the worst hangover eventually passes. Let us stop confusing our children. Let us, instead, infuse them with pride and confidence in who, and what, they actually are. Lies are lies, howsoever packaged.
*You see, when Halle Berry insists that her child is Black, she is according her 50% White ethnicity no value  and thereby being quite racist  the very thing she supposedly does not subscribe to! So too as regards Gabriel Aubry. Both are being overtly racist!*

Personally I am a very nice shade of honey brown, and very proud of it. I do not think of myself as either black or white. I acknowledge that I am "a person of colour" ... but it is not a preoccupation.  It is also quite bemusing to see how all the supposed "black" folk are now nearly all also a nice shade of brown, (with Coloured type hair to match)  on account of cosmetic interventions. Concomitantly  so many White folk "roast" themselves to get to my colouring.

What angers me is that, in order to secure socio-economic rights in South Africa (naively aping the US), under Affirmative Action and Black Empowerment laws, I have to claim and prove that I am Black. So we have the gross obscenity that during racist colonial days, many Coloured folk had to play white, so as to secure socio-economic rights. Now we have to play black,  even though we have supposedly been liberated at terrible human cost??? Right there our "new free South Africa" has embedded the racist culture of its previous apartheid oppressor! ... whichever way you want to bake it! WOW!

*It is obscene. It is vomitus stuff.
Again, as homo sapiens,  do we not know that justice, particularly social justice, can never be founded on lies.
We are free to be who we are. We need to get off the Jim Crowe plantation.
Unlike the Tunisians and Egyptians we are free to  now just claim our freedom?*

----------

Dave A (14-Feb-11), Martinco (14-Feb-11)

----------


## Dave A

It certainly makes you wonder - if the hangover (as you put it) is still lingering in the USA, how long before we get over it here in South Africa?

How about the UK where the policy of multi-culturalism is now being called to question? "They" need to be more British - whomever "they" are and never mind that defining "British culture and values" is no simple matter either.

Maybe it's not enough to fight racism, sexism and religious intolerance? Maybe the real enemy is bigotry in all forms.
(Which scares me somewhat because it's awfully easy to be a thoughtless bigot entirely by accident and without intended malice sometimes).

----------


## adrianh

> What angers me is that, in order to secure socio-economic rights in South Africa (naively aping the US), under Affirmative Action and Black “Empowerment” laws, I have to claim and prove that I am Black. So we have the gross obscenity that during racist colonial days, many “Coloured folk” had to “play white”, so as to secure socio-economic rights. Now we have to “play black”, … even though we have supposedly been liberated at terrible human cost???


Caught between a Rock... (Robin Island & Blaawuberg Strand...)

----------


## ChrisNG53

Dave A: -


> (Which scares me somewhat because it's awfully easy to be a thoughtless bigot entirely by accident and without intended malice sometimes).


I think you have put your finger right on it. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the vast majority of South Africans do not see, for one moment, that "race based" affirmative action is *racist.*Neither do they see that the consequential national obsession with race, colour and ethnicity is "organic racism". 

Understandably they all believe that it is necessary to ensure transformation, given our history. 

No one, it seems , even starts to realize that we are perpetuation a "racial mindset", fostering, nurturing and embedding it in the psyche of the growing generation.

That is why the "Coloured/Indian/Chines" issue is a very useful "touchstone" to demonstrate the pernicious effect of the current model. The fact that these citizens are forced to define themselves as *what they are not* in order to secure socio-economic rights demonstrates, at a stroke, that what we are doing is quite *vomitus*, albeit unintended.

----------

Dave A (16-Feb-11)

----------


## Justloadit

so how do we go about teaching the masses their wrong assumptions?

Its all good and well discussing it on the forum here amongst a few, but the message must be taken across to the masses if there is going to be any change.

----------


## Dave A

All this does is bring us back to "is there any such thing as fair racial discrimination?"

I think more than a few of us here say no. But taking such a verdict into reality would be really inconvenient for a lot of beneficiaries of this system.

Sooner or later there is going to be a new struggle if it carries on this way.

----------


## AndyD

> All this does is bring us back to "is there any such thing as fair racial discrimination?"


Or, "is it fair to use racial discrimination to address an imbalance caused by racial discrimination?"
The laws of this country and many others make provision for it so in the eyes of the law if obviously is fair.

----------


## Dave A

> Or, "is it fair to use racial discrimination to address an imbalance caused by racial discrimination?"


Is it a question of fairness at all (to use racial lines), though. I'd suggest it's a matter of wisdom. 

By basing correction along racial lines you're still entrenching a racist mindset. How does this break the cycle?

I mean, shouldn't Halle Berry of all people be past seeing race as so massively significant to her by now?

----------


## ChrisNG53

> Can racial discrimination ever be fair?


Yes ... as when it does not prejudice another human being in their human rights. That is why the question is nearly always posed as "was this unfair discrimination?" Once it results in inequality before the law it simply cannot be "fair".

The statement by AndyD - 


> Or, "is it fair to use racial discrimination to address an imbalance caused by racial discrimination?"


is the packaging that is presented to justify AA and BEE as not being "unfair" as it supposedly redresses pre-existing unfairness.

It is a fallacious argument both philosophically and in reality. On both counts you simply cannot assume that *all Whites* were/are *economically advantaged* over and above *all Blacks*  on account of apartheid.

If that is the case, *and it is*, you cannot just discriminate against *all Whites* in favour of *all Blacks*. Such discrimination is *arbitrary and inherently unfair,* in terms of both common sense and jurisprudence.

In addition, you cannot assume, that the economic advantage/disadvantage still subsists in every case. So we are not at all surprised that these policies have been used to fabulously enrich connected Black  "fat cats" ... totally regardless of history, *at the expense of true transformation*.

The key to all this is set out in the "Limitation Clause" of the Constitution - (in this case we apply it to AA and BEE laws that "limit" rights not to be discriminated against)



> 36. Limitation of rights 
> 
> The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is *reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom*, taking into account all relevant factors, including *
> the nature of the right;
> the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
> the nature and extent of the limitation;
> the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
> *less restrictive means to achieve the purpose*.
> 
> Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.


The arbitrary AA and BEE *race based* approach simply cannot be viewed as "reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom" particularly as there is a perfectly good "less restrictive means to achieve the purpose".

And that "means" gets us back to the original question - "Can discrimination be fair?". Yes --- and this is what the policy (means) should be -- 
*when the recipient of favourable discrimination is still disadvantaged on account of apartheid.*
This model would target persons *still disadvantaged* on account of apartheid! Quite obviously, as Blacks are the vast majority in this category, they would be the primary beneficiaries.

However such non *race based* criterion would do the job very nicely and rid the whole issue of its *racist* character. It also rids us of the nation's devisive obsession with race/colour/ethnicity (apartheid culture) ---  *an*d psychological damage to our children in their development.

We certainly would not have this nonsense of Coloured/Indian folk *needing to be Black* in order to secure socio-economic rights and Chinese being defined as Black. How more coo-coo can we get?

----------


## Butch Hannan

Personally I am a very nice shade of honey brown, and very proud of it. I do not think of myself as either black or white. I acknowledge that I am "a person of colour" ... but it is not a preoccupation.  It is also quite bemusing to see how all the supposed "black" folk are now nearly all also a nice shade of brown, (with Coloured type hair to match)  on account of cosmetic interventions. Concomitantly  so many White folk "roast" themselves to get to my colouring.

Hi Chris,
I love your description of yourself. I can quote many examples of children of different colours playing happily with each other without a care in the world. They are not really interested in the colour of their "playmates"  The teaching of the subject Life Orientation Skills is a very poor attempt by Government at social engineering and indoctrination. If you have a chance look at some of the content. Maybe the time has come for some very brave person to remove the word "race" from the dictionary where it means a classification of people.
Butch Hannan

----------

