I once heard the situation in South Africa described thusly:
Imagine you have been part of a football game whereby the other team had been allowed to cheat. It is now half time and you are losing 46-0. It has been announced that the game is now going to be played fairly.
So, do you simply start playing the game fairly; or do you let the team that has been cheated catch up?
At the moment, we are in the catching up phase.
Pretty powerful words in my opinion; and very hard to come up with a fair argument against it.
Over to you gentlemen :-)
I think the analogy you shared pretty much sums up the 'new dispensation' - it is the unstated roadmap given for a process of change in the 'new South Africa'. I believe South Africans have all-but accepted this dispensation, and that is at the root of our problem. It is based on an unsound analysis of our situation, it is one which was ushered in by compromises.
The ANC has always embraced the idea that our problem was a racial one and that non-racialism (the new jargon for the old idea of 'breaking the colour-bar') was the panacea to our problem. They are in an alliance of convenience with Trade Unions and the Communist Party, but in essence the ANC and it's alliance are hard-core capitalist and Nationalist. Ramaphosa himself, (a former trade unionist/'socialist'/capitalist).
If any person wonders about the South African 'wonder' - how there no bloodshed during the revolution, the answer is 'because there was no revolution'.
You see, @cryptogee - the idea of revolution in our situation is not to end up with two teams, but one team. It is only then that an individual can grow up feeling he or she is part of a nation. The teams I think the analogy makes reference to is black and white. That idea has it that when we see more people of color in the elite group/playing in the match, then we have achieved change and nationhood perhaps. This is non-racialism. It is not going to suffice because the real teams are the 70% of the nation that is landless, poor, and insecure vs the 30% enjoying varying degrees of security which are way better than the 70%. If those are the teams we are examining, the score is still 46-0 after more than 20 years of a new dispensation. The gap is widening, while the security and employment, education, health, etc.
You see, for me, the analogy is accurate but it describes a terrible situation; one where we are accepting an argument which to me is unacceptable viz. that to rectify the wrongs of the past, we should continue doing what the culprits did in the past. The game has to change, not just the players. (my apologies for the lengthy comment).
@cryptogee,
Excellent metaphor. But he's got an excellent rejoinder too.