3 ms·

By "apartheid apologetics" do you mean that it is factually wrong or merely that you dislike the framing? I think there is a huge difference between those two a

By "apartheid apologetics" do you mean that it is factually wrong or merely that you dislike the framing? I think there is a huge difference between those two accusations.

croes 1y ago
>A prevailing narrative depicts apartheid as a system of unremitting total oppression for black South Africans, yet empirical data indicate substantial advancements in black literacy and real wages during the era. This is a false contradiction. You can oppress people and still pay them higher wages and fight illteracy.
- a0123 1y ago
  No you can't. You also don't seem to understand "apologetics"?
  - croes 1y ago
    So by your logic the people of the german democratic republic weren’t oppressed because they got free education and proper wages. I think the citizens saw that differently.
- dmix 1y ago
  It's not presenting that as an opinion or purely facts-based though, it's documenting other narratives that exist in the world under a "Legacy and Critical Assessments" headline.
  - croes 1y ago
    It presents a false logic like it's not A because B but B has nothing to do with A. You can say, you are not poor because you own a house but you can not claim you are not poor because you can read. That's not another narrative that's a false contradiction
- sebastiennight 1y ago
  You're describing a very charitable scenario. You might get those outcomes while still fighting against literacy and high wages. Since a rising tide lifts all boats, in a growing economy you might see wages, literacy and health outcomes improve nominally for an oppressed group, in absolute terms, while all of these outcomes improve significantly faster for the other group(s) in the same period.
cozzyd 1y ago
Apologetics has a well-defined meaning. In this case, it's a bad faith deluge of out-of-context non-sequiturs posing as a coherent argument in order to defend something deplorable.

By "apartheid apologetics" do you mean that it is factually wrong or merely that you dislike the framing? I think there is a huge difference between those two accusations.

croes 1y ago

>A prevailing narrative depicts apartheid as a system of unremitting total oppression for black South Africans, yet empirical data indicate substantial advancements in black literacy and real wages during the era. This is a false contradiction. You can oppress people and still pay them higher wages and fight illteracy.

a0123 1y ago
No you can't. You also don't seem to understand "apologetics"?
- croes 1y ago
  So by your logic the people of the german democratic republic weren’t oppressed because they got free education and proper wages. I think the citizens saw that differently.
dmix 1y ago
It's not presenting that as an opinion or purely facts-based though, it's documenting other narratives that exist in the world under a "Legacy and Critical Assessments" headline.
- croes 1y ago
  It presents a false logic like it's not A because B but B has nothing to do with A. You can say, you are not poor because you own a house but you can not claim you are not poor because you can read. That's not another narrative that's a false contradiction
sebastiennight 1y ago
You're describing a very charitable scenario. You might get those outcomes while still fighting against literacy and high wages. Since a rising tide lifts all boats, in a growing economy you might see wages, literacy and health outcomes improve nominally for an oppressed group, in absolute terms, while all of these outcomes improve significantly faster for the other group(s) in the same period.

cozzyd 1y ago

Apologetics has a well-defined meaning. In this case, it's a bad faith deluge of out-of-context non-sequiturs posing as a coherent argument in order to defend something deplorable.