2 ms·

"When people vote for politicians based on moral appeals" Is this really SA's problem, or rather classical tribalism? "A bastard, but our bastard." (See also:

"When people vote for politicians based on moral appeals" Is this really SA's problem, or rather classical tribalism? "A bastard, but our bastard." (See also: Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq etc. Not just an African phenomenon.)

pseg134 3y ago
What made you say this isn’t an African phenomenon and “is this really SA’s problem?”. I can’t figure out what that is in response to?
mantas 3y ago
See also many cases in West when politicians are voted in based on gender. E.g. here in Lithuania we had a presidential candidate who is a women. I heard too many people advocating for her based on her gender. I heard some people going as far as saying that all women shall vote for her. Should all men vote for another candidate who happened to be man? Never got an answer :/
- sneed_chucker 3y ago
  "Identity politics for me but not for thee"
  - mantas 3y ago
    Sort of. Eventually the lady lost. Some people cried that she lost because she is woman. Sexism and all that jazz. But we had woman president for previous 2 periods. Once elected in 1st round with 50%+ vote right off the bat. And we had first woman PM in early 90s. But yeah, it’s just sexism and not coming from a very polarizing party. With a baggage of being finance minister during 08 crisis.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Tribalism is often encouraged by invaders and colonizers. Divide and Conquer is a classic tactic. See Tutsi Vs Hutu for one notable example in Africa. And this was a known strategy in apartheid South Africa.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  Is this really blamed on Apartheid? Whenever I have talked with South African Blacks about the various tribal affiliations of the country, they claim that each community did not much like each other (and everyone hated the Zulus) since long before white people arrived. Indeed, it was white oppression that gave an impetus to pan-Africanism where, for a time in the ANC, people might have united across tribal affiliations.
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    The Tutsi and Hutu split stretches back before colonisation too. You could make the argument that it was always going to be a problem and the colonizers didn't materially affect the course of history. What you can't do is argue they didn't intentionally take advantage of this split for their own purposes. Because they did and it's documented history. edit to add: Here's a pro-apartheid Quora answer that suggests the separation of the different tribes was necessary to stop communists from stealing South Africa's mineral wealth. > Apartheid gave these tribes their land back. Apartheid gave each tribe his independence from White Rule. Yes you lived ‘apart’ from the whites. But you lived apart in your own country. You could choose your own leaders and government and destiny. > Communism was one of the driving forces to push the Black Independence program. The communists were using the blacks to try out vote the whites so that they could get control of of SAs mineral resources. By dividing SA into several smaller countries you effectively defeated the Communist plan.
    - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
      That odd poster is writing about the (rather abortive) Bantustan effort after 1970. While that effort aimed to separate whites and blacks, it didn’t particularly seek to separate blacks from each other in spite of a claimed titular nationality for each; the projected bantustans were quite tribally mixed. So, it isn’t an example of what you were claiming.
      - _djo_ 3y ago
        That's inaccurate, the Bantustans were explicitly created on tribal lines: Transkei & Ciskei: Xhosa Bophuthatswana: Tswana (it's even in the name!) Venda: Venda (ditto) Kwazulu: Zulu (seeing the trend here?) The Apartheid government was heavily involved in pitting tribes against each other, and especially in trying to co-opt Zulus against the others by allying with the Inkhata Freedom Party and Zulu king and offering them money, power, and other incentives.

pseg134 3y ago

What made you say this isn’t an African phenomenon and “is this really SA’s problem?”. I can’t figure out what that is in response to?

mantas 3y ago

See also many cases in West when politicians are voted in based on gender. E.g. here in Lithuania we had a presidential candidate who is a women. I heard too many people advocating for her based on her gender. I heard some people going as far as saying that all women shall vote for her. Should all men vote for another candidate who happened to be man? Never got an answer :/

sneed_chucker 3y ago
"Identity politics for me but not for thee"
- mantas 3y ago
  Sort of. Eventually the lady lost. Some people cried that she lost because she is woman. Sexism and all that jazz. But we had woman president for previous 2 periods. Once elected in 1st round with 50%+ vote right off the bat. And we had first woman PM in early 90s. But yeah, it’s just sexism and not coming from a very polarizing party. With a baggage of being finance minister during 08 crisis.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

Tribalism is often encouraged by invaders and colonizers. Divide and Conquer is a classic tactic. See Tutsi Vs Hutu for one notable example in Africa. And this was a known strategy in apartheid South Africa.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
Is this really blamed on Apartheid? Whenever I have talked with South African Blacks about the various tribal affiliations of the country, they claim that each community did not much like each other (and everyone hated the Zulus) since long before white people arrived. Indeed, it was white oppression that gave an impetus to pan-Africanism where, for a time in the ANC, people might have united across tribal affiliations.
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  The Tutsi and Hutu split stretches back before colonisation too. You could make the argument that it was always going to be a problem and the colonizers didn't materially affect the course of history. What you can't do is argue they didn't intentionally take advantage of this split for their own purposes. Because they did and it's documented history. edit to add: Here's a pro-apartheid Quora answer that suggests the separation of the different tribes was necessary to stop communists from stealing South Africa's mineral wealth. > Apartheid gave these tribes their land back. Apartheid gave each tribe his independence from White Rule. Yes you lived ‘apart’ from the whites. But you lived apart in your own country. You could choose your own leaders and government and destiny. > Communism was one of the driving forces to push the Black Independence program. The communists were using the blacks to try out vote the whites so that they could get control of of SAs mineral resources. By dividing SA into several smaller countries you effectively defeated the Communist plan.
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    That odd poster is writing about the (rather abortive) Bantustan effort after 1970. While that effort aimed to separate whites and blacks, it didn’t particularly seek to separate blacks from each other in spite of a claimed titular nationality for each; the projected bantustans were quite tribally mixed. So, it isn’t an example of what you were claiming.
    - _djo_ 3y ago
      That's inaccurate, the Bantustans were explicitly created on tribal lines: Transkei & Ciskei: Xhosa Bophuthatswana: Tswana (it's even in the name!) Venda: Venda (ditto) Kwazulu: Zulu (seeing the trend here?) The Apartheid government was heavily involved in pitting tribes against each other, and especially in trying to co-opt Zulus against the others by allying with the Inkhata Freedom Party and Zulu king and offering them money, power, and other incentives.