Comments on: A beer with Gavin Evans (Part 7 – The ECC, Brett Myrdal) http://mhambi.com/2009/12/a-beer-with-gavin-evans-part-7-the-ecc-brett-myrdal/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-beer-with-gavin-evans-part-7-the-ecc-brett-myrdal A re-deployed blog with views on Azania* Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:13:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Mike http://mhambi.com/2009/12/a-beer-with-gavin-evans-part-7-the-ecc-brett-myrdal/comment-page-1/#comment-1009 Mike Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:58:24 +0000 http://mhambi.com/?p=658#comment-1009 I should perhaps add that the above does not attempt to summarise Apartheid in some simplistic manner, i.e. that it was purely paternalistic. It is rather an attempt to look at an aspect of Apartheid and the racism that underpinned it :-) I should perhaps add that the above does not attempt to summarise Apartheid in some simplistic manner, i.e. that it was purely paternalistic. It is rather an attempt to look at an aspect of Apartheid and the racism that underpinned it :-)

]]> By: Mike http://mhambi.com/2009/12/a-beer-with-gavin-evans-part-7-the-ecc-brett-myrdal/comment-page-1/#comment-1008 Mike Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:55:30 +0000 http://mhambi.com/?p=658#comment-1008 Very interesting comment there right at the end. Obviously he's not saying Apartheid was OK, but it was a (limited) 'parliamentary democracy'. I remember a post you once wrote, long ago, about an English (as in UK) friend who played golf at Sun City and was disgusted by the racism in a sign barring caddies from retrieving balls in a water hazard because it was infested with crocodiles. You made the point that it was probably not a case of stopping the white golfers from sending their black caddies into harms way, but more a case of paternalism, i.e. protecting the black caddies from hurting themselves. I.e., still racism, but a different kind - a paternalistic kind. That's if I remember your point correctly? I think it's important to remember Apartheid for what it was and what lay behind it. One can engage the topic infinitely better if sticking to what Apartheid actually was, or by at least endeavouring to do so. Very interesting comment there right at the end. Obviously he’s not saying Apartheid was OK, but it was a (limited) ‘parliamentary democracy’. I remember a post you once wrote, long ago, about an English (as in UK) friend who played golf at Sun City and was disgusted by the racism in a sign barring caddies from retrieving balls in a water hazard because it was infested with crocodiles.

You made the point that it was probably not a case of stopping the white golfers from sending their black caddies into harms way, but more a case of paternalism, i.e. protecting the black caddies from hurting themselves. I.e., still racism, but a different kind – a paternalistic kind. That’s if I remember your point correctly?

I think it’s important to remember Apartheid for what it was and what lay behind it. One can engage the topic infinitely better if sticking to what Apartheid actually was, or by at least endeavouring to do so.

]]>