Every scholar agrees that both blacks and whites were economically better off under apartheid than under the the ANC. However, that blacks were better off under apartheid cannot justify apartheid because apartheid is racist, so the argument goes.
This is problematic. If a policy is indefensible because it is racist, then how can liberals support affirmative action? In south Africa, black economic empowerment is american-style affirmative action on steroids. It's obviously racist, yet the policy is defended as a means of 'bridging the economic gap between whites and blacks.' But hold on, was it not already established that a policy is indefensible if it is racist, despite whatever economic advantages it confers on the beneficiaries?
The logic is water-proof. Modern day South Africa is indefensible.
No comments:
Post a Comment