DA Senior Members Concerned by Maimane’s ‘White Privilege’ Comments
Despite being at loggerheads with three of his senior colleagues, South African Democratic Alliance (DA) leader, Mmusi Maimane says he is standing by his comments about white privilege. Addressing DA supporters in Shoshanguve, Pretoria for a Freedom Day rally, Maimane said white privilege and black poverty must be addressed to bring out the true meaning […]
Despite being at loggerheads with three of his senior colleagues, South African Democratic Alliance (DA) leader, Mmusi Maimane says he is standing by his comments about white privilege.
Addressing DA supporters in Shoshanguve, Pretoria for a Freedom Day rally, Maimane said white privilege and black poverty must be addressed to bring out the true meaning of freedom.
The City Press reports that during a heated caucus meeting on Thursday, the DA’s Chief Whip John Steenhuisen, his deputy Mike Waters, and MP Natasha Mazzone allegedly took Maimane on. They were reportedly supported by DA MP Ghaleb Cachalia.
The senior MPs are said to be “terrified” of alienating white voters ahead of next year’s general election.
Maimane’s comments included that many white South Africans, like his wife, have the benefit of a head start “purely through the knowledge their social network carries, and I say this not to make white South Africans feel guilty about it, but to point out where we need to get to for our black sisters and brothers too”.
"My wife & I appeared to have started off in similar places, but in reality there was a difference.
She was all but guaranteed Uni entrance, could start a business thanks to a network of people willing to assist
For many white SAns this is the case." – @MmusiMaimane #FreedomDay pic.twitter.com/gbU07twD1V
— Democratic Alliance (@Our_DA) April 27, 2018
"Black South Africans aren’t poor because they are black.
They are poor because they are still enslaved by a system that keeps them poor.
A system that denies them their freedom every day." – @MmusiMaimane #FreedomDay https://t.co/DZ0OESYdwq
— Democratic Alliance (@Our_DA) April 27, 2018
Following the alleged “heated” meeting on Thursday, Maimane has made it very clear on Twitter today – Sunday 6 May 2018 – that he stands by his comments:
I firmly stand by comments I made on Freedom Day. SA remains deeply unequal, with black SAns locked out of opportunities. We must focus on solving the problem. Liberation of one race is not the enslaving of another – all of us, black & white, must come together to build #1SA4All
— Mmusi Maimane (@MmusiMaimane) May 6, 2018
"Black South Africans aren’t poor because they are black.
They are poor because they are still enslaved by a system that keeps them poor.
A system that denies them their freedom every day." – @MmusiMaimane #FreedomDay https://t.co/DZ0OESYdwq
— Democratic Alliance (@Our_DA) April 27, 2018
UPDATE: DA’S Eastern Cape Leader Supports Maimane
Nqaba Bhanga, DA EC Provincial Leader, has issued a press statement in support of Maimane’s comments, saying: “In South Africa the legacy of apartheid continues to determine who accesses opportunities.
“Apartheid was a system designed to benefit white South Africans and disadvantage black South Africans. The privilege associated with that system lives on and can never be denied or be swept under the carpet.
“I therefore agree with the DA’s Federal Leader, Mmusi Maimane, when he says that the time has come for South Africans to confront “white privilege and black poverty”.
“The history of South Africa leaves us in no doubt that white people, in the past, had a political, social and economic advantage over black South Africans.
“And nowhere is this historical imbalance clearer than in the spatial development of the country, which placed white people in a privileged position and black people in a disadvantaged position.
“After South Africa’s first free and fair democratic election in 1994, the consensus was that these imbalances of the past must be redressed…
“Unfortunately the current social and economic reality is that access to opportunities is still defined by the haves versus the have nots.”