←back to thread

116 points mooreds | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
stroebs ◴[] No.45656069[source]
My father (born in ZA) had to re-register his birth at 65 when emigrating to the UK on a visa. The ZA government had no record of his birth, despite him having a drivers license, passport, tax returns for 40+ years…

This is the least bit surprising coming from a country that is in steady decline.

replies(6): >>45656643 #>>45657158 #>>45657533 #>>45657783 #>>45657856 #>>45657958 #
mad_tortoise ◴[] No.45657533[source]
Fascinating you say "a country that is in steady decline" when all the data of the past 29 years since the start of democracy seems to go against that statement. I hate the ANC for their corruption and other stances, but I don't let party political hate get in the way of the real basis of what is going on in the country. I'm guessing you haven't spent much time there? Whereas I have spent the past 25 years and travelled and lived extensively in South Africa.

What is your indication of decline? Some facts and figures:

- Less than 30% of the population having access to water has increased to near 100%.

- Electricity had less than 30% access and now sits around 90%

- Access to education (The matric pass rate more than doubled from 53.4 in 1995 to 82.9 in 2023) to taking that to near 100% in 29 years is pretty incredible.

- Taking 8 million people out of poverty and lower class into the middle class in that time is pretty great.

- Access to free healthcare for the entire country.

- The freedom of not being discriminated towards due to skin colour.

Yes the ANC has had an opportunity to do much greater good, but if you take in the bigger picture and understand that the white population still holds over 70% of the wealth while being 10% of the population - this is an enforced inequality that needs to be righted.

If you look at the freedoms of South Africa, it has possibly the best constitution in the world. Sure, the enforcement of the laws are not as good as the laws themselves - but the rate of improvement in my lifetime has been staggering. Even despite the setback of the Zuma years.

Even now, we have gone from an ANC dominated political landscape to a Government of National Unity, which forces different political factions to work together. Another huge milestone in the burgeoning democracy of a young country.

It is so far from perfect but if you really have spent any significant time in SA and still think it is a country in decline, then I am more inclined to think you're one of the types of expats who love to shit on something that you have no bond to, and not because your arguments are bound by facts. We must interrogate the long standing consequences of white monopoly capitals violent subjugation of South Africans in both the past and the present to paint a fair picture of the country.

Your quote " a country that is in steady decline." certainly does not paint a fair picture.

replies(5): >>45657626 #>>45657638 #>>45658135 #>>45661381 #>>45665212 #
1. TimorousBestie ◴[] No.45657782[source]
The trick here, for the uninitiated, is that “race-based law” or “race law” means the law refers in some way to race. That is legally and logically distinct from “laws that discriminate on the basis of race,” which is how most foreigners read the term.

Here’s a more reasonable point of view: https://cthulhucachoo.substack.com/p/does-south-africa-reall...

2. ◴[] No.45657821[source]
3. mad_tortoise ◴[] No.45657894[source]
[flagged]
replies(2): >>45657980 #>>45659861 #
4. randunel ◴[] No.45657980[source]
What does "historically disadvantaged communities and persons" mean in ZA? Any racial bias present in this phrase, which is apparently in multiple laws?

I just started looking and, for example, when issuing licences to extract water, the authorities must, in accordance with the law, "consider [...] the need to redress the results of past racial and gender discrimination". Why would a water licence need such a consideration, and is it discriminatory in ZA's context?

replies(1): >>45658588 #
5. mad_tortoise ◴[] No.45658588{3}[source]
In your example, because many businesses (majority white owned) have riparian rights and those who live on the land need equal access despite being historically disadvantaged from gaining access to said water rights.
replies(1): >>45667332 #
6. dang ◴[] No.45659861[source]
You broke the site guidelines badly in this thread. Can you please not do that? We're trying for a different sort of internet forum here, not the kind where people bash each other for being wrong and/or bad.

If you would please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make your substantive points thoughtfully, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are, we'd appreciate it.

7. dang ◴[] No.45659903[source]
Please make your substantive points without crossing into personal attack.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

8. randunel ◴[] No.45667332{4}[source]
I understand the concept of "riparian rights", but I fail to see how gov't entities who issue water licences (or any government service, for that matter) would need to "consider [...] the need to redress the results of past racial and gender discrimination".

I'm trying to apply that logic to any of my gov't services, and it would be outrageous to have any random thing responsible with redressing past racial discrimination, water rights, maternity rights, access to public information, literally any government service. It couldn't possibly be in their purview to take such a thing into consideration.