Reckless White Males
The text accompanying this irreverent photo essay is an exact copy of an article recently published on the South African edition of the Huffington Post which was so popular they decided to take it down.
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.
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.
At the same time, a denial of the franchise to White men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners.
After all, White men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism.
A period of twenty years without White men in the world’s parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world’s wealth far more equitably shared.
The violence of White male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.
This redistribution of the world’s wealth is long overdue, and it is not just South Africa where White males own a disproportionate amount of wealth.
In the United States ten percent of the population (nearly all White) own 90 percent of all assets — it is likely that these assets are largely in the hands of males.
It is obvious that this violent status quo will not change without a struggle, and the only way to do so will be through the expropriation of these various assets and equitably distribute them to those who need them.
Over the past 500 years colonialism, slavery, and various aggressive wars and genocides, have been due to the actions of White men. Redistributing some of their assets will go some way to paying the historical debt that they owe society.
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.
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.
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.
* * *
Source: Modern Heretic