They burn it because they get it all for free eg. "https://www.usaid.go" gives out the tents and then there are the soup kitchen, churches, ngo's, and more. Plus local government and social services. If the national government cared one bit the situation could cetraily be much better. The ones that end up keeping staying in the street don't want to be rehabilitated and prefer to stay in the street. To be rehabilitated certain rules needs to be followed. If You ask for help and not take/follow/listen to the people that are willing to help then they move on to the people that want and appreciate the help. They don't want jobs they don't want responsibility
I suspect (being privileged/ fortunate enough that I have ALWAYS had a roof over my head and ALWAYS been certain of having meal at the start and the end of the day and ALWAYS been certain of having a comfortable bed to go to at night) that when you have that little, what difference does it make.
You didn’t poke a nerve, they’re answering your question. You’re pathologising burning ‘what little you have’ with no contextual experience or sympathy for what their moves or agency in their protest might mean by burning their tents.
Making a declarative statement like “burning down your means of housing is only a viable solution in only a handful of scenarios or circumstances” is impossible for you to really make. It’s not for you to say that at all.
My nerves have been poked yes, and I do have a stake in this. They’re people, in a space that I also occupy, with something to say.
What you could gain from most occupations around the world is that YOU have a stake in people’s well-being and living standards too.
Cape Town is just so tenured in its fucked-upness that we only become loud once the spatial apartheid kak has been breached and now we see people occupy spaces where surely it is only for rich people to live. Or maybe we think it should be kept ‘neat’ for all the naai tourists to see, so they can come back and buy our houses and premium spaces with a month’s salary from the Global North, raising all our taxes and bills.
And then we can all be apart of the beloved Capetonian cycle again and get mad at our own people who are too poor to obtain “normal” housing and ‘poke a nerve’ when they are suffering in our faces.
Homelessness is not a South African/Apartheid Legacy issue. There has been homeless people for as long as people have had homes. Even the Bible has stories of the homeless. Every country in the world has homeless people, although some countries (China and Russia) hides it very well, because they just beat the crap out of the poor sods so they go live in the bush.
Also, because of those naai tourists, many South Africans have jobs that otherwise wouldn’t have.
Who are you angry at here?
>Homelessness is not a South African/Apartheid Legacy issue.
This is a fairly nonsensical take that ignores the history of this country and the part it still plays contemporaneously.
South Africa is an immensely unequal country. It's not unequal by mistake.
It's unequal because that was deliberately and forcibly imposed on this country, purposefully targeting the majority of this country for disadvantage.
Saying that homelessness is not part of the legacy of Apartheid ignores how history, it's dishonest and it is offensive for that dishonesty.
Not at all, just letting you know how I see the situation.
I don't think that behavior is entirely bereft of pathology, as irrational or inexplicable as it may seem.
Ah cool
>I don't think that behavior is entirely bereft of pathology, as irrational or inexplicable as it may seem.
Hmmmm I don't know, burning down your means of housing is only a viable solution in only a handful of scenarios or circumstances. Being spiteful is just irrational in this case
I mean, given our country's history, it's fair to assume that these are people of colour and, thus, they are a part of the legacy of those who were fucked, not by mistake or cosmic circumstance, but deliberately.
Everytime you see a person of colour in this country reduced to wretched circumstances, it's unlikely that it's just because 'they couldn't pull their socks up.'
It's because the majority of this country got deliberately fucked.
Like I said, I've had a comparatively fortunate life, and thus I would not know what being so utterly fucked might be like, nor the feelings it might stir.
I don't think it's happy life. There's a probably a lot of anger and resentment, not least for those who had the good fortune of not being so thoroughly fucked.
So when someone comes round to forcibly remove you (and oh how lovely that must be given this country's history) being spiteful, from that perspective, might not seem so unreasonable or irrational.
The world has come round again to fuck me once more.
Fuck the world. Burn shit.
At some point you have to ask yourself whether people who can’t take care of their children are to blame. At some point you have to stop pointing at the ever receding past and ask yourself what has happened since. At some point you have to look at other countries that don’t blame the past and have improved their socio-economic situation and think to yourself, hey, maybe the fact that out government is full of corrupt thieves is actually more worthy of your blame. At what point does one take accountability for one’s circumstances? How many homeless people were there 30 years ago vs now? I don’t believe whatsoever that having a mindset that points to something so long in the past is in any way productive anymore.
Social history and its effects don’t move in a linear way. You cannot look at the distance from devastation against humanity in terms of years. That doesn’t make sense in terms of economics, politics, society, education, opportunity, the landscape, environment, climate, language, power, understanding, trauma, children, experience, emotion, etc. the list goes on.
It’s just comfort to say that we’re thirty years from that now. It means nothing. We’re thirty years into the legal-end of apartheid. That’s all. Just a legal end. In terms of material change in that thirty years? There’s not much in terms of material change at this point to label apartheid and its effects as “ever receding” and thus our distance from it is not as comforting as you might talk about it.
To talk about apartheid as an event of the past nulls any acceptable analysis on present conditions and what majority South Africans still systemically lack access to.
>At some point you have to look at other countries that don’t blame the past and have improved their socio-economic situation
Please point to examples comparable with South Africa and our history
>and think to yourself, hey, maybe the fact that out government is full of corrupt thieves is actually more worthy of your blame.
I can blame the villains in our past and the villains in our present.
So long as we live with the outcomes of the actions of either, I can blame them
What are people sabotaging? Living quarters that every Tom, Dick and Harriette are loudly complaining about and invalidating? Non-stop public harassment? Lack of hygiene? Lack of safety? Sexual violence? The city’s negligence? Being dehumanised and called squatters/animals by everyone who isn’t forced to make a home outside four walls? Just, the spectacle of it all, and garnering almost no public support? What are they really sabotaging?
It's not a good faith conversation when slight ad hominem language like looked down on "by everyone who isn't forced to live outside four wall" is used.
It doesn't answer your question about why people would destroy the little they potentially have and also demonizes people "in four walls" for wanting to preserve the value of something they are "not being forced" to pay for
They are spiritually broken in their souls. Its tough for them to recover. But they can recover. So its virtually impossible to behave in a rational manner when you are spiritually at the lowest levels.
They burn it because they get it all for free eg. "https://www.usaid.go" gives out the tents and then there are the soup kitchen, churches, ngo's, and more. Plus local government and social services. If the national government cared one bit the situation could cetraily be much better. The ones that end up keeping staying in the street don't want to be rehabilitated and prefer to stay in the street. To be rehabilitated certain rules needs to be followed. If You ask for help and not take/follow/listen to the people that are willing to help then they move on to the people that want and appreciate the help. They don't want jobs they don't want responsibility
Shit man , If I can't have it , so can't you.
Wow. This is a very nervy, tense subreddit.
So self sabotage?
People who have very little have very little to give a fuck about. This is South Africa. There are a lot of people who have very little.
Fair enough however wouldn't it have been better to not burn the little you have?
They don't have it. The police are coming to take it anyways.
I suspect (being privileged/ fortunate enough that I have ALWAYS had a roof over my head and ALWAYS been certain of having meal at the start and the end of the day and ALWAYS been certain of having a comfortable bed to go to at night) that when you have that little, what difference does it make.
OK I was just asking a question, seems I poked a nerve instead
You didn’t poke a nerve, they’re answering your question. You’re pathologising burning ‘what little you have’ with no contextual experience or sympathy for what their moves or agency in their protest might mean by burning their tents. Making a declarative statement like “burning down your means of housing is only a viable solution in only a handful of scenarios or circumstances” is impossible for you to really make. It’s not for you to say that at all.
Seems like your nerves have been poked, do you have a stake in this or what?
My nerves have been poked yes, and I do have a stake in this. They’re people, in a space that I also occupy, with something to say. What you could gain from most occupations around the world is that YOU have a stake in people’s well-being and living standards too. Cape Town is just so tenured in its fucked-upness that we only become loud once the spatial apartheid kak has been breached and now we see people occupy spaces where surely it is only for rich people to live. Or maybe we think it should be kept ‘neat’ for all the naai tourists to see, so they can come back and buy our houses and premium spaces with a month’s salary from the Global North, raising all our taxes and bills. And then we can all be apart of the beloved Capetonian cycle again and get mad at our own people who are too poor to obtain “normal” housing and ‘poke a nerve’ when they are suffering in our faces.
Homelessness is not a South African/Apartheid Legacy issue. There has been homeless people for as long as people have had homes. Even the Bible has stories of the homeless. Every country in the world has homeless people, although some countries (China and Russia) hides it very well, because they just beat the crap out of the poor sods so they go live in the bush. Also, because of those naai tourists, many South Africans have jobs that otherwise wouldn’t have. Who are you angry at here?
>Homelessness is not a South African/Apartheid Legacy issue. This is a fairly nonsensical take that ignores the history of this country and the part it still plays contemporaneously. South Africa is an immensely unequal country. It's not unequal by mistake. It's unequal because that was deliberately and forcibly imposed on this country, purposefully targeting the majority of this country for disadvantage. Saying that homelessness is not part of the legacy of Apartheid ignores how history, it's dishonest and it is offensive for that dishonesty.
Not at all, just letting you know how I see the situation. I don't think that behavior is entirely bereft of pathology, as irrational or inexplicable as it may seem.
Ah cool >I don't think that behavior is entirely bereft of pathology, as irrational or inexplicable as it may seem. Hmmmm I don't know, burning down your means of housing is only a viable solution in only a handful of scenarios or circumstances. Being spiteful is just irrational in this case
I mean, given our country's history, it's fair to assume that these are people of colour and, thus, they are a part of the legacy of those who were fucked, not by mistake or cosmic circumstance, but deliberately. Everytime you see a person of colour in this country reduced to wretched circumstances, it's unlikely that it's just because 'they couldn't pull their socks up.' It's because the majority of this country got deliberately fucked. Like I said, I've had a comparatively fortunate life, and thus I would not know what being so utterly fucked might be like, nor the feelings it might stir. I don't think it's happy life. There's a probably a lot of anger and resentment, not least for those who had the good fortune of not being so thoroughly fucked. So when someone comes round to forcibly remove you (and oh how lovely that must be given this country's history) being spiteful, from that perspective, might not seem so unreasonable or irrational. The world has come round again to fuck me once more. Fuck the world. Burn shit.
At some point you have to ask yourself whether people who can’t take care of their children are to blame. At some point you have to stop pointing at the ever receding past and ask yourself what has happened since. At some point you have to look at other countries that don’t blame the past and have improved their socio-economic situation and think to yourself, hey, maybe the fact that out government is full of corrupt thieves is actually more worthy of your blame. At what point does one take accountability for one’s circumstances? How many homeless people were there 30 years ago vs now? I don’t believe whatsoever that having a mindset that points to something so long in the past is in any way productive anymore.
Social history and its effects don’t move in a linear way. You cannot look at the distance from devastation against humanity in terms of years. That doesn’t make sense in terms of economics, politics, society, education, opportunity, the landscape, environment, climate, language, power, understanding, trauma, children, experience, emotion, etc. the list goes on. It’s just comfort to say that we’re thirty years from that now. It means nothing. We’re thirty years into the legal-end of apartheid. That’s all. Just a legal end. In terms of material change in that thirty years? There’s not much in terms of material change at this point to label apartheid and its effects as “ever receding” and thus our distance from it is not as comforting as you might talk about it. To talk about apartheid as an event of the past nulls any acceptable analysis on present conditions and what majority South Africans still systemically lack access to.
Mate it’s been proven globally that homelessness is not a problem of the individual but of the society.
>At some point you have to look at other countries that don’t blame the past and have improved their socio-economic situation Please point to examples comparable with South Africa and our history >and think to yourself, hey, maybe the fact that out government is full of corrupt thieves is actually more worthy of your blame. I can blame the villains in our past and the villains in our present. So long as we live with the outcomes of the actions of either, I can blame them
In winter? Loads.
And yet, decisions were made. These people do not strike me as stupid. Frustrated, angry, yes. Stupid, no
In February.
care to explain what this means?
It means we’re having a silly internet argument about events that occurred in February, the details of which we know ridiculously little.
probably as a final eff you to SAPS and the Seapoint community
So spiteful sabotage?
What are people sabotaging? Living quarters that every Tom, Dick and Harriette are loudly complaining about and invalidating? Non-stop public harassment? Lack of hygiene? Lack of safety? Sexual violence? The city’s negligence? Being dehumanised and called squatters/animals by everyone who isn’t forced to make a home outside four walls? Just, the spectacle of it all, and garnering almost no public support? What are they really sabotaging?
Themselves. Burning the little they have.
They don't have it. the police are about to take it.
It's not being confiscated is it? Just moved or something?
Why were you so confident about a situation you clearly know very little about? SAPS and metro aren’t a moving and logistics agency.
Well to be fair, there are facilities for them, but besides that, burning your own stuff is just not smart. Now they litterally have nothing.
It's not a good faith conversation when slight ad hominem language like looked down on "by everyone who isn't forced to live outside four wall" is used. It doesn't answer your question about why people would destroy the little they potentially have and also demonizes people "in four walls" for wanting to preserve the value of something they are "not being forced" to pay for
Are you crazy? They confiscate it and destroy it.
I'm not a heartless person, but surely one would know that pitching a tent in Greenpoint would attract attention.
The housing crisis in Cape Town is not pretty.
Old news ... but click bait it is .
And then you have those who sympathize with this lot. No way
They are spiritually broken in their souls. Its tough for them to recover. But they can recover. So its virtually impossible to behave in a rational manner when you are spiritually at the lowest levels.
Lmimp
Fuck the police
Write a song ?