Yes, I did just ask that question. Though its not a question I take seriously for reasons that should be obvious, a recent article has forced the question onto my radar due to being given credibility by a fairly mainstream platform (Huff Po).
This question was first brought to my attention this morning by TJ Kirk (aka/formerly The Amazing Atheist) VIA the following video released a day or 2 ago. He did his own commentary on it which you can listen to.
Within this commentary, I hear things that I like. But I also hear things that are a bit questionable. Rather than express either agreement or disagreement with it, I would rather take on the article for myself.
And here is the article itself.
It should be noted that this is from the South African edition of the website. While not entirely familiar with the political state of affairs in the region, I can understand why this may come up there in the mainstream (as opposed to elsewhere). That nations rough history is not all that far behind us.
I was going to pick this apart piece by piece, but this happened.
Huffington Post SA has removed the blog “Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?” published on our Voices section on April 13, 2017.
We have done this because the blog submission from an individual who called herself Shelley Garland, who claimed to be an MA student at UCT, cannot be traced and appears not to exist.
Well then. Its great to know that they check these things before they publish them for the whole world to see!
It looks like Huff Po SA has taken steps to ensure that this does not happen again, including voluntarily holding themselves accountable to South African media regulators (due to the nation having a hate speech ban). While I don’t think punishment is in order in this case (someone took advantage of the system), its a good wake up call for the whole of the industry. Be careful with your sources, or you could get fooled (if not trolled!).
That was anti-climactic. Since I set out to tackle this post, lets do this. Fortunately for us, the post was up long enough to be sampled by many publications. So, off we go!
The first part we will get from the Washington Standard. Remember, I don’t give a damn what they have to say about it . . . I just need the quote.
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.
Though I am unaware of South African politics (as said before), in terms of both Brexit and the US election of Trump, its not ALL on the backs of (presumably) privileged white men.
With a world population that is split around half way down the middle between males and females (in fact, if memory serves, females have a slight advantage in this area!), this does not hold up. If every female voter (white or otherwise!) voted either against Brexit or for Hillary Clinton, the landscape would likely look very different.
The white man scapegoat also overlooks at least 2 important factors that played into both votes.
One was anger over an ever changing world which was leaving many previously employed middle class people ended up being out of work. Though much of their misery can be traced to money saving decisions made in high rise boardrooms all over the western world, its easy to use the media (and now social media) to create a scapegoat. This time around, its immigrants that take the brunt of the heat.
The other half of the equation is the continued inaction of the left in both countries. 2 votes that were SUPER important for EVERYONE in both the short AND long term. But apparently the choice was to initially wait it out, then cry foul once the deed was done.
So, no, its not fair (OR even correct!) to blame ALL of today’s societal regressions on the undue influence of the white man. Though it is indeed undeniable, the fact remains that it does not HAVE to be!
Take the US GOP. Right now those arrogant wide eyed morons are running wild. Just listening to them for 10 seconds exposes just how incredibly STUPID they are (and therefore, how dangerous they are). Yet even though their enablers are numbering fewer and fewer in a progressing world, these baby boomers still remain at the helm.
The left COULD take the wheel. They just have to drop the bullshit, in infighting, the excuses.
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.
I will read a little between the lines here.
The denial of the white man vote for just 20 years would be just enough time for most of these older males to die off. Though change is coming anyway, this would no doubt speed up the process.
As I said before, you do not NEED to go this route. We can make changes happen in the short term. You just have to actually get out and vote!
…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.
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.
…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.
Though this is a common argument one hears a lot, its not one I take all that seriously anymore.
Though the human species ended up culminating with the whites at the head of the pack, being that we all share a similar makeup, I honestly don’t think that switching out other races in the various roles that make up human societies would yield differing results. There are anecdotes abound that when given the chance, instinct typically trumps all else in such situations.
So, yes. I am saying that even if blacks ended up being the dominant race, I doubt things would look much different. Same goes for any other race.
As for reparations, while I understand the sentiment, I also don’t agree with it.
Its not a healthy way to be. Rather than figuring out how to best proceed in a world often devoid of both people AND problems of which one seeks reparations for, they cling to this past. Guilting a current generation that likely never harmed them, but more importantly, never reaching their true potential.
Humans never were (and never WILL be!) perfect. Being continuously hyper focused on this rough past is of no benefit to anyone. Particularly when we are all equally capable of being such monsters.
For more quotes from the article, I will switch to a website called CSC Media Group. Again, all I care about is the quotes, NOT the content.
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.
First off, im not sure what the author means by ideological offshoot. While it COULD be said that libratarianism could be a branch off of liberalism (Classical Liberalism anyway), I wouldn’t think of conservatism as branching off liberalism.
I could be wrong. I am used to treating the 2 as separate and distinct units. But that could just be on account to, how the hyper partisan political world is. So feel free to correct (or confirm) any of this in the comment section.
As for them all promoting individualism, most of the philosophies that make up modern societies (INCLUDING progressive ones!) fall into this area. Humans have this habit of wanting and acting as though they are completely individualistic and independent, yet they also like macros. Groups big and small, were the most independent followers there are!
While group affiliation (or hive minds, as some may interpret the statement) is obviously thought by the author to foster altruism, this also may only go so far. I often see groups (even within other groups!) that are collectives, yet they become so self focused that they become just a bigger unit example of an individual with a self serving nature. The left is littered with examples of this!
In fact, this problem directly ties into my earlier words in this article, because these divisions actively keep us all from coming together and BEING the change that we desire!
That about concludes the article (or at least, what I can find of it). Whatever the reasoning for submitting this piece for publishing was, it allowed me the chance to delve into some stuff that was worth looking into.
Even if this article ends up being exposed as a baiting piece, its not a stretch that its a serious philosophy for some. Hence, worth exploring.