Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?
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.
13/04/2017 03:56 SAST | Updated 2 hours ago
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.
Read: This Blog On White Men Is Going Viral. Here's Our Response.
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.
Read: This Is Not A Drill: Rachel Dolezal Is Coming To South Africa.
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.
“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.
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.
Read: Are White South Africans Sleepwalking Through Racial Transformation?
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.
Huffington Post (Archive)
Their response after the backlash:
This Blog On White Men Is Going Viral. Here's Our Response.
It all started with a blog on HuffPost SA called "Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?"
14/04/2017 14:12 SAST | Updated 23 minutes ago
On Thursday, the Huffington Post South Africa published a blog by Shelley Garland, an activist and feminist currently completing an MA degree in philosophy.
In the blog titled "Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?", Garland talks about how the biggest blows to the progressive cause have often been thanks to white men.
On Friday the blog was picked up by a former senior editor of alt-right Breitbart News in the US, who was banned from Twitter over his harassment of actor Leslie Jones.
The Huffington Post South Africa has received an onslaught of messages and comments from those angered by the blog, particularly via our email address inviting corrections from our readers. Here is a small sample:
"I see a correction needs to be made on this article! The entire thing is misogynistic and also racist. If you could clear that up for me, that would be great."
"Congrats Huffingtonpost! You are now Officially the most racist website online! It was hard work, but just look at you now! PS Race is a social construct."
"Delete this article and fire this self-hating racist."
"Here's a correction. Delete your entire website. You absolute psychopaths."
"Lets do an experiment: 1 - copy this article in MS word 2- Hit "Ctrl+R" and replace "White men" with any other group, gender or ethnic background. 3 - Read the article again...Are you offended? If you are, why are you printing this garbage?"
"This article is racist towards white men. How can you allow this trash on your site? I've lost respect for huffpost, sorry, you are no categorized as junk along with the rest of the SJW trash that seems to persist on the internet."
"I think your editor meant to place this in the satire section or your local equivalent." Otherwise - and I say this as a person sympathetic to progressive political causes - I suggest they take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves "What the fuck is wrong with you?"
"White monopoly? Tell it to the ancient Egyptians, ancient Chinese. Get OVER yourselves. Want more, black folk? WORK HARDER! Come up with your OWN economic system. Stop the "mouth crap" and build a better FvKKinq mousetrap."
"Suck my balls. The world owes you nothing."
And that's not the worst of it. We've excluded the overtly racist, sexist and violent comments that are quickly gathering in our inboxes.
Garland's underlying analysis about the uneven distribution of wealth and power in the world is pretty standard for feminist theory. It has been espoused in many different ways by feminist writers and theorists for decades now. In that sense, there was nothing in the article that should have shocked or surprised anybody (or so we thought.) It would appear that perhaps much of the outcry derives from a very poor reading of the article -- or perhaps none at all. Dismantling the patriarchal systems that have brought us to where we are today, a world where power is wielded to dangerous and destructive ends by men, and in particular white men, necessarily means a loss of power to those who hold it. A loss of oppressive power. Those who have held undue power granted to them by patriarchy must lose it for us to be truly equal. This seems blindingly obvious to us.
This doesn't necessarily mean we agree or endorse everything in Garland's blog. The point of our Voices section is to invite a wide array of voices and views.
We hope, as reads continue to rack up on this blog, that those who are tempted to fire off an angry email to us would first engage with the underlying analysis in Garland's blog.
Huffington Post (Archive)
This is the same left-radical regressive website that is currently espousing political Islam and peddling conspiracy theories about Muslims being persecuted by Western powers in their Arab version of the same website.
Forum-autist, coming through!